get_event_classes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses the authentication constraint and that the club API key is rejected, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not explicitly state read-only safety, but the 'Get' verb implies it.

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 two tight sentences, front-loads the purpose, and then supplies the critical authentication requirement. No words are wasted.

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?

For a simple read tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose and the important authentication quirk. It remains thin on parameter semantics and usage alternatives, but the output schema carries return-value details.

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 description coverage is 0% and the only parameter, event_id, is not described in the schema. The description says 'for a specific event,' which minimally links the parameter to an event, but adds no format, source, or constraint details.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the competition classes defined for a specific event.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_event_entries and get_competitors without needing to name them.

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?

It gives an important usage prerequisite: EVENTOR_USERNAME and EVENTOR_PASSWORD are required, and the club API key will not work. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as get_event_entries.

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