list_competition_submissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. 'List your submissions' implies a read-only operation scoped to the current user, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, required authentication, output format, or how submissions are ordered.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: the verb, the resource, the ownership scope, and the competition context.

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?

The tool appears simple, but with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameter semantics and return behavior. It does not; an agent would still be unsure what values comp accepts and what the response contains.

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 0%, so parameter descriptions are empty for both comp and page_size. The overall phrase at least connects comp to a competition and page_size is self-explanatory by name, but the description does not clarify comp's expected format (e.g., slug, ID, or URL) or how page_size interacts with the response.

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 states the exact operation ('List your submissions'), the resource ('submissions'), and the scope ('for a competition'). The word 'your' distinguishes this from the sibling list_team_submissions, which likely covers team submissions instead.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus list_team_submissions or other competition listing tools. The purpose is implied by the description, but no when/when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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