competition_submissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately indicates a read operation ('View submission history'). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or limits (e.g., pagination).

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose and one docstring line for the parameter. No wasted words.

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?

While the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description does not mention whether results are paginated, ordered, or if authentication is needed. It is minimally adequate for a basic list view.

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 single parameter 'competition' is described as 'Competition URL suffix' in the docstring, adding clarity beyond the bare schema (which has no description). Schema coverage is 0%, but the tool description compensates well for this single required param.

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 explicitly states 'View submission history for a competition,' providing a clear verb (View) and resource (submission history). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like competition_get_submission (single submission) and competition_submit.

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 gives the basic purpose but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like competition_get_submission or competition_submit. No 'when not to use' or context for selection.

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