search_competitions

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

No annotations provided, so description is the sole source. It discloses auto-pagination up to max_pages, but lacks details on rate limits, read-only nature, or error behavior. Minimal transparency beyond the stated behavior.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too minimal for a 4-parameter tool, missing important details that could be added without being verbose.

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?

With 4 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and an output schema not shown, the description leaves many gaps. It fails to explain the search query format, the role of the 'public' flag, or pagination behavior beyond max_pages.

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 0%, but the description only indirectly mentions max_pages. It does not explain 'q' (search query), 'public', or 'page_size' meaning beyond their names and types.

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 'Search public Codabench competitions' with a specific verb and resource. It adds the nuance of 'public' and mentions auto-pagination, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_competition' or 'list_competition_phases'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools cover different cases (e.g., getting a specific competition).

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