Get solve/submit URL

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds useful behavioral context: the tool constructs a URL and does not perform the solving/submitting itself. It also explains the domain-dependent identifier behavior. The only minor omission is clarifying whether contest_id and problem_set are mutually exclusive or what happens if both are supplied.

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 three short sentences with no filler: purpose, parameter selection guidance, and usage context. Each sentence earns its place and the core action is front-loaded.

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 lightweight URL-builder with a full output schema and complete schema documentation, the description covers the purpose, the two identifier modes, and the intended use case. The only material gap is the unstated mutual exclusivity or precedence behavior when both contest_id and problem_set are provided.

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 value by linking contest_id to contest problems and problem_set to curated-set problems, and by enumerating the accepted set values. However, it lists 'classics|faang|quant|math' while the schema also allows 'cls', which is a small incompleteness.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Build the repovive.com URL where a problem can be read and solved in the browser.' This makes the tool's function immediately clear and distinguishes it from related problem tools like get_problem or submit_solution. The website-only note further sharpens its unique role.

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 gives concrete routing guidance: pass contest_id for contest problems and problem_set for curated-set problems. It also gives a usage context ('Useful when a capability is website-only'), but it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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