List past contests

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only the notion that results are historical; it says nothing about ordering, whether the list is bounded, or how paging behaves in practice, which is the value it could have added.

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 short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though it arguably errs on the side of under-specification for a tool that collides with a sibling name.

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 no-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and an existing readOnly annotation, the essentials are present. What is missing is the distinction from contests_list and any hint about result volume or paging, which an agent listing contests would need.

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 three well-documented parameters (limit, offset, channel), so the schema carries the semantic load. The description contributes nothing beyond that, which lands at the baseline for a fully documented 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?

States a clear verb and resource ('List the channel's previous contests') and the word 'previous' scopes it to past/historical records. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-identical siblings such as contests_list or contests_get, leaving the agent to guess which one returns historical data.

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 statement of prerequisites, and no named alternative. The agent is not told why it would pick contests_history over contests_list, even though the two names are nearly interchangeable.

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