Get Study Champion

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral nuance: stale champion handling, holdout-use blocking, validation resolution effects, reviewer-declared references, and the frontend-session limitation. It enriches the agent's understanding of data semantics beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense but not bloated. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then layers important caveats and constraints. Each sentence adds information relevant to correct invocation or interpretation. It is appropriately concise for the amount of behavioral detail it conveys.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. The description covers the key data aspects (incumbent, blockers, candidates, history) and important edge cases (stale champions, holdout blocking, validation resolutions, session limitations). It is complete enough for an agent to understand what this tool returns and the conditions that affect its results.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the tool description must compensate. It does not mention study_id at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the parameter name. For a read tool with a single obvious parameter, the lack of explicit explanation is a minor gap, but given the low coverage, the description fails to add any value 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?

The description opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Read incumbent, eligibility blockers, accepted candidates and immutable champion history.' This precisely states what the tool returns and distinguishes it from other study-related tools like get_study or get_study_run by focusing on the champion concept. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides behavioral context (e.g., 'Ordinary viewing does not block', 'Selection/replacement/revocation require an owner frontend session') that implies this is a read-only query tool. However, it never explicitly names alternative tools or states when to prefer this over a sibling like get_study. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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