get_person_by_wca_id

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 key behavioral traits: the tool returns filtered information based on parameters, warns about potentially 'extremely long' responses with competition results, and explains default behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness.

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, usage context, parameter explanations, and return statement. It's appropriately sized for a 7-parameter tool. Minor improvement could be front-loading the parameter section more explicitly, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 moderate complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains parameters thoroughly and mentions return behavior. The output schema existence means it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could better address sibling tool differentiation and error cases.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains all 7 parameters with clear semantics: what each controls (e.g., 'include detailed competition results'), provides examples (e.g., '2003SEAR02'), and clarifies defaults. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific WCA competitor by their WCA ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('WCA competitor'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on individual person data rather than competitions, rankings, or other entities listed in sibling tools.

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 context through parameter explanations (e.g., 'By default, returns basic info... without verbose competition results'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_competition_results' or 'get_rankings'. It provides some guidance on avoiding overly long responses but lacks direct sibling comparisons.

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