get_prompted_contests

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It implies a read-only operation through 'Return' and mentions the raw nature of the data, but does not explicitly state side-effect absence, rate limits, or payload size considerations. The use case is described, but deeper behavioral traits are not disclosed.

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 concise, two sentences total, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the use case in the second. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for a simple retrieval tool, especially given that an output schema exists to explain return values and a fully documented input schema. However, it could mention that the tool is read-only or note likely large response sizes, but these are minor gaps given the overall clarity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds no specific parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, such as 'skip', 'batch_size', or 'prompt_name' defaults. The mention of 'prompt text' and 'contests' indirectly relates, but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Return the prompt text together with contest documents for AI processing', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly combining prompt text with raw MongoDB contests, which is a unique purpose.

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 an explicit when-to-use scenario: 'Use this when Claude or ChatGPT needs both the instructions and the raw MongoDB contests in a single response so it can normalize them locally.' It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but gives clear context for appropriate use.

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