get_competition_rounds

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the scope (all rounds, active/past) and output fields. But lacks details on ordering, pagination, or authentication requirements. Since it's a simple list, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by specific content. Every word adds value.

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?

No output schema, but description explains the return content sufficiently for a list tool. Could mention ordering or whether filtering by round status is supported, but not critical.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning by listing output fields (rules, asset universe, entry counts), which is valuable beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists all competition rounds with specific content (rules, asset universe, entry counts) and includes both active and past rounds. It distinguishes from siblings like get_competition_leaderboard which focuses on individual round rankings.

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?

Implied usage: when you need info about competition rounds. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to siblings like get_competition_leaderboard or other analysis tools.

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