submission_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns guidance and lists contents, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the data is static or dynamic, any authentication needs, or the output format (even though an output schema exists). Minimal transparency beyond purpose.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second lists the contents. Every word earns its place. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does and what it returns. It is sufficiently complete for a simple informational retrieval tool, though it does not mention data freshness or dynamic vs. static content.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by enumerating what the output includes (evaluation criteria, URL, program list), which complements the output schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('submission guidance for Create Apps Championship') and lists included items (evaluation criteria, URL, program list). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'createapps_championship' by focusing on submission guidance rather than general championship info.

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?

The description implies use when a user asks about submission details for the Create Apps Championship, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'createapps_championship' or any other alternatives. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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