speechwire_get_tab_sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It details the output structure but does not mention safety (e.g., that it's a read-only operation), idempotency, or potential side effects. Adding that it is a retrieval with no side effects would improve transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, parameter section, and bullet-pointed return details. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the simple parameter (1 integer) and the presence of an output schema (implied by the detailed return description), the description is complete. It fully explains inputs, outputs, and provides a reference to a related tool.

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 provides 0% description coverage, but the description adds a clear explanation of the grouping_id parameter, including its source from a sibling tool. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema title.

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 'Get the results tab sheet for a competition grouping' and lists the contents (round-by-round outcomes, per-speaker scores, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with judges, rooms, or teams.

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 specifies that the grouping_id should come from speechwire_list_groupings, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though siblings are focused on different entities.

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