search_competitions_by_date

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 useful behavioral traits: the tool returns a 'small, focused list' (1-5 competitions), which is valuable for LLM processing. However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid dates.

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 clear sections (purpose, behavior, args, returns, example) and appropriately sized. Every sentence adds value, though the example could be slightly more concise. The front-loaded purpose statement is effective.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, parameters, return characteristics, and includes an example. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, which it appropriately avoids.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It successfully adds meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose and providing valid ranges (year as integer examples, month 1-12, day 1-31), though it doesn't specify format constraints like year limits.

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 searches for WCA competitions on a specific date, using specific verbs ('search for', 'returns') and identifies the resource ('WCA competitions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_competitions_by_event' by specifying date-based search rather than event-based.

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 ('on a specific date', 'exact date specified') and mentions the typical result size (1-5 competitions). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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