get_recent_ac_submissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves data and focuses on accepted submissions, but fails to describe key behaviors such as response format, pagination, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a read operation without annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieves a user's recent accepted submissions') and adds necessary qualification ('on LeetCode Global, focusing only on successfully completed problems'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every part of the sentence contributes to clarifying the tool's intent.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output information. It adequately states what the tool does but fails to provide sufficient context on behavior, return values, or usage nuances, which are critical for an AI agent to invoke it correctly without guesswork.

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%, with clear documentation for both parameters in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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 specific action ('Retrieves'), target resource ('a user's recent accepted (AC) submissions on LeetCode Global'), and scope ('focusing only on successfully completed problems'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_recent_submissions' by specifying the AC (accepted) filter, making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'recent accepted submissions' and 'successfully completed problems', which suggests when to use it versus general submission tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_user_profile' or 'get_recent_submissions', or any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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