List contests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds meaningful domain context ('points betting on outcomes') and discloses result scope ('including the active one'), but says nothing about ordering, completeness, or what happens on a channel with no contests.

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 efficient sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a tool with many contest-related siblings, but there is no padding or repetition.

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 read-only one-parameter list operation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is sufficient to call the tool correctly. Return-shape explanations are not needed since no output schema exists to contrast against, and the scope is stated.

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% for the single optional 'channel' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics (24-char hex id, defaults). The description's 'the channel's contests' only restates that scoping and adds no format or fallback detail beyond the 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 specific verb (list) and resource (contests), and adds a definitional gloss ('points betting on outcomes') plus the scope detail 'including the active one'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby contests_history or contests_list_bets siblings, which an agent must infer.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'including the active one' hints this returns current/all contests rather than a history or a single record, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no sibling (contests_history, contests_get, contests_list_bets) is named as the alternative.

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