Get a contest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that the tool pages through the contest list until it finds a match, which explains why older contests resolve and implies potential performance characteristics. It also clarifies that the contest number is the one shown in the title.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and identifier options, followed by the paging behavior. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential invocation details. It could be slightly stronger about whether exactly one of contest_id or contest_number must be provided, but the schema and description together are adequate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small but useful semantic detail: contest_number refers to the number shown in the title, reinforcing what the schema already describes. It does not add significant new meaning beyond that.

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 ('Fetch'), a single resource ('one contest's full record'), and the exact identifier options (contest number or ObjectId). The phrase 'full record' and 'one contest' clearly distinguish this from repovive_list_contests and repovive_get_contest_registrations.

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 main use case: retrieve one specific contest by its number or ObjectId. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the identifier-focused framing gives reasonable context.

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