List contest bets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of pagination, result ordering, whether contests must be closed, or what the returned bet records contain.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects some under-specification rather than dense information.

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?

Adequate minimum for a simple read tool: the schema covers both parameters and annotations cover safety. Still missing any note on result shape, pagination, or ordering, and no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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%, so both contestId and channel are fully documented in the schema (including the 24-char hex pattern and the SE_CHANNEL_ID default). The description adds no extra parameter meaning; 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+resource: listing bets placed on a contest. This is clearly distinct from contests_list (which lists contests), contests_bet (which places a bet), and contests_get. However, it does not explicitly name those siblings or spell out the distinction, leaving the agent to infer it.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. It never says to use contests_bet to place a bet or contests_list to enumerate contests, nor does it mention scope such as filtering by user or contest state.

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