get_contests_for_migration

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the selection behavior (contests missing category, prizeSummary, or feeConfidence) and pagination intent, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention potential empty results or error conditions. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences, immediately conveying the main purpose, followed by a clear explanation of the selection criteria and pagination. There is no extraneous information, and the structure is front-loaded with the core verb and object.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple retrieval tool with two self-descriptive parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers why to use it (migration), what it returns (contests missing fields), and how to process in batches. It is complete and leaves no significant gaps for the agent to guess.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for skip and batch_size. The description adds only the general advice to use pagination, which does not significantly enhance the parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: getting a batch of existing contests needing migration to v4.0 schema. It specifies the resource (contests), the action (get), and the selection criteria (missing key fields), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_contests_missing_images or get_contests_for_detail_generation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: during migration to v4.0, specifically for contests missing key fields. It also advises using pagination for batch processing. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or how it compares to alternative tools, though the unique scope is evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.