Search Contest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the input and output but does not explain behavior on edge cases such as no match, multiple matches, or case sensitivity. This lack of transparency could leave agents uncertain about error handling or selection criteria.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and result. Every word contributes to meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose and return value, but it does not address failure modes or edge cases (e.g., what happens if the contest name is not found). Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 100% and the parameter 'query' is already described as '대회 이름' (contest name). The description reiterates this without adding extra information about format, validation, or alternatives, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 the tool's function: using a contest name to return the contest slug. The verb '반환합니다' (returns) and resource '대회 슬러그' (contest slug) are specific, and it clearly differentiates from siblings like list-contest which lists contests rather than converting a single name to a slug.

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 implies the tool should be used when a contest slug is needed for a given contest name, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list-contest or search-problem. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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