get_competitors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the authentication requirement (EVENTOR_USERNAME and EVENTOR_PASSWORD), which is genuine behavioral context. However, it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what happens with invalid organisation ids, or rate/volume limits.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, with credentials and parameter notes kept short. The Google-style 'Args:' block is slightly mechanical for a single parameter but wastes little space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, the sole parameter's format, and the auth requirement. Minor gaps remain around error behavior and whether results are paginated, but nothing essential to invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no description in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does so by documenting the expected format ('Comma-separated Eventor organisation id(s)') and noting multiple clubs are accepted. Only the id source/validation rules remain unstated.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all registered competitors') plus the scoping dimension ('for one or more clubs'). An agent can distinguish it from event-scoped siblings like get_event_entries, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisites beyond credentials, and no alternative tools named. The organisation-scoped framing hints at its niche versus event-scoped siblings, but the agent must infer that rather than being told.

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