Get contest ranking

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context with 'capped at the number of rows you ask for' and 'after a contest', but does not disclose details like default limit behavior or whether results are paginated.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return contents, followed by a usage hint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the input schema fully documents parameters, the description covers the essential purpose, fields, row cap, and timing. It is slightly incomplete in not differentiating this from repovive_get_leaderboard or repovive_get_contest_results, but it is otherwise sufficient for a low-complexity read-only tool.

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 100%, so the parameter meanings are already fully documented. The description adds only a general reference to row capping, which maps to the limit parameter, but provides no extra semantics 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a contest's standings' with the exact fields returned (rank, participant, country, total score). This is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like repovive_get_leaderboard or repovive_get_contest_results.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use it after a contest to see final placement.' This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the similar-sounding siblings or mention exclusions.

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