audit_comp_live_listings

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states the snapshot is updated with each release, should be treated as a hint, and that cross-checking is necessary. It also notes the tool is free, no payment required, which is valuable behavioral context.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first defines purpose, second adds usage guidance, third addresses limitations and cost. No redundant language, well front-loaded.

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?

The description explains the output type (curated snapshot, platforms, purpose) and limitations (stale data, need to cross-check). Without an output schema, it could benefit from a brief mention of what fields or structure the snapshot contains, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 parameters. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed.

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 it returns a curated snapshot of live audit competitions and bug-bounty programs from specific platforms (Code4rena, Cantina, Sherlock). It uses strong verb 'Return' and specifies the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are unrelated.

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 explicitly mentions this tool is 'useful for solo wardens triaging which contests to enter', providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or offer alternatives, but the caveat to cross-check adds important guidance.

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