Get contest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that the response includes options, totals and state, which is useful payload context, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior for a missing/invalid id, or result freshness.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists what is returned. No wasted words and nothing important buried.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential fact that the response carries options, totals and state, and annotations cover safety. Missing only the error/missing-id behavior, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema fully documents both contestId (24-char hex pattern) and channel (defaulting behavior). The description only alludes to the id parameter with 'by id' and adds no format or default detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one contest by id') and adds the payload shape ('options, totals and state'), which is more informative than a bare restatement. It does not name a sibling to contrast with (e.g., contests_list vs. contests_get), so an agent must infer the singular-vs-list boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative tools (contests_list, contests_list_bets, contests_draw_winner). 'By id' implies a known-id lookup, but nothing states that condition or excludes the list variants.

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