Get a problem

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful read-behavior context by promising the full problem contents plus the workspace URL in one call. It does not discuss response format or hidden-test details, but the output schema covers those, and there is no contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence lists what is fetched, and the second front-loads the intended usage context. Every part 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 fetch tool with a rich output schema and fully documented parameters, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. It names the key contents and the appropriate moment to call it, so nothing essential is missing.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the tool's overall purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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 verb and resource: 'Fetch one contest problem in full,' followed by a concrete enumeration of what is included (statement, formats, constraints, limits, tags, samples, workspace URL). This distinguishes it from close siblings like repovive_list_contest_problems and repovive_get_problem_workspace_url without needing to open schemas.

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 explicitly tells when to call it: 'This is the tool to call before solving or submitting.' This is a strong usage cue, but it does not name alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer that listing problems or fetching only the workspace URL belongs to sibling tools.

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