Get giveaway

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 without the description. The description adds the meaningful behavioral toggle that entrants are only included on request, but says nothing about behavior when the giveaway id does not exist or how large the entrants payload may be.

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 no filler; the required lookup key comes first and the optional flag is appended after 'optionally', which is exactly the right ordering.

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 tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate: it tells the agent what it returns conceptually and that entrants are opt-in. It omits the not-found case and any indication of response shape or volume, which an agent calling blindly would benefit from.

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 all three parameters (channel, entrants, giveawayId) are already documented in the schema, including the 24-char hex pattern and the SE_CHANNEL_ID default. The description's mention of id and entrants adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so 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?

Clear verb+resource with scope: 'Get one giveaway by id' precisely identifies a single-record fetch, which distinguishes it from giveaways_list and giveaways_history that are visible among siblings. It does not name an alternative explicitly, but the singular 'one giveaway' scope makes the distinction inferable.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as giveaways_list_entrants despite the entrants flag overlapping with that sibling. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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