createapps_championship

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description goes well beyond them by disclosing the record's state (cycle 3 registration closed, finalist phase), the origin of the data (operated by DCDE, structured timeline vs. stale FAQ), and explicitly warning that the returned record flags an inconsistency and advises reconfirming — genuinely useful behavioral context.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the following sentences enumerate record contents (twelve finalists, 14 April 2026, finals scheduled 7 October 2026) that the output schema already returns. That detail is aimed at the agent's downstream use rather than tool selection, so it is partially redundant padding.

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?

With an output schema present, zero parameters, and full annotation coverage, the agent needs little more than the resource identity plus any freshness caveat — both of which are supplied. The description is complete for calling the tool correctly; only the lack of explicit routing guidance keeps it off a 5.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to clarify inputs, and it correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics.

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 and resource ('Return Create Apps Championship details') scoped to 'the current cycle', which clearly distinguishes it from loosely related siblings like gitex_info, startup_events, and dcde_programs. It never names a sibling it is not, but the resource is unique enough that an agent can route to it without confusion.

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 implied by 'for the current cycle' and by the competition-status narrative, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. For a zero-parameter read of a single record, implicit guidance is tolerable, so a 3 is fair rather than a 2.

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