List giveaways

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. The description adds only the scoping detail that the active giveaway is included; it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what happens for channels with no giveaways. Minimal added value over the structured fields.

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. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 low-complexity read-only list with a fully documented optional parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is the ambiguity around what is actually returned (all giveaways vs. only open/active ones) and how it differs from giveaways_history.

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 the single 'channel' parameter (24-char hex, defaulting to SE_CHANNEL_ID or the token's channel) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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 ('List the channel's giveaways') with a scope modifier ('including the active one'). However, it does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling giveaways_history, which plausibly also lists giveaways, leaving the agent to guess which listing tool to pick.

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 and no mention of alternatives, despite several nearby siblings (giveaways_history, giveaways_get, giveaways_list_entrants) that overlap in intent. The agent gets no routing signal beyond the name.

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