list_competitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'List competitions' implies a read-only listing operation, but it does not mention pagination, default sorting/filtering behavior, or what the response contains.

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 brief but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains no filler, but it also contains no substantive information to help an agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 five parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling toolset, this description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain return values, parameter effects, or how this tool fits into the broader competition workflow.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the five parameters. The description must compensate for the empty parameter descriptions but instead provides no parameter guidance whatsoever.

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 'List competitions' exactly restates the tool name, providing no information beyond the name itself. It does not specify what kind of competitions, the scope of the listing, or how it differs from related tools such as list_competition_files or list_competition_submissions.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context, exclusions, or references to sibling tools that could help an agent choose correctly.

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