get_competition_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'returns comprehensive information' without detailing what 'comprehensive' includes, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic read operation.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, bullet points for Args and Returns, and no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, parameter, and return intent, though it could better differentiate from siblings and add more behavioral details. The output schema reduces the need to fully describe return values.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose ('WCA competition ID') and providing an example ('e.g., "WC2023"'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic string type. With only one parameter, this is sufficient.

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 verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific competition by its ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_competitions_by_date or get_competition_results by focusing on a single competition's comprehensive details.

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 implies usage when detailed competition info is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like get_competition_results (for results only) or search_competitions_by_date (for multiple competitions). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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