Get my contest results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description only needs to add behavior beyond those hints. It usefully discloses that it 'combines the contest's problem list with the account's submissions' and enumerates the derived fields (points, attempt count, best verdict, total solved). It doesn't mention how page_size affects computed totals, but the annotation safety profile lowers the burden.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The output vocabulary is front-loaded, and the combination logic is stated efficiently in the second sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only aggregation with a provided output schema and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. The main missing context is how page_size interacts with 'every problem' and 'total solved' — a small page_size could produce partial results, which is a correctness-relevant caveat. Otherwise, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds no param-specific detail beyond what the schema states. The optional page_size's impact on the computed totals is not clarified, but that is a shared gap between the schema and description rather than a failure of the description alone.

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 ('Summarise'), resource ('one contest'), scope ('authenticated account'), and enumerates the output ('points, attempt count, best verdict, total solved'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_contest (contest metadata), get_leaderboard/get_contest_ranking (rankings), and list_contest_problems (problem list), none of which summarize the authenticated account's own performance.

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 clearly frames when to use it: when you need the authenticated account's results for a single contest. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but its scope is evident against the ranking and contest-listing siblings. A 5 would require an explicit 'use X instead for rankings' statement, which is missing.

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