competition_get

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'detailed info' but does not specify scope, side effects (read-only), or any constraints. For a get tool, minimal disclosure of behavior.

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?

Two sentences, directly to the point. However, the second sentence is a Python docstring that could be merged into a single sentence. Still efficient overall.

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?

With output schema present, description need not detail return format. However, lacking annotations, more behavioral context (like read-only nature) would improve completeness. Adequate for a simple 1-param tool.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema: provides example ('titanic') and clarifies it's a URL suffix. This compensates for zero schema description coverage, helping the agent construct valid arguments.

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?

Title and description clearly state 'Get detailed competition info', specifying the resource (competition) and action (get). The example differentiates from siblings like competitions_list (list all competitions) and competition_leaderboard (leaderboard), making purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., competitions_list for browsing) might be more appropriate. The agent has no context for selection.

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