get_my_winning_entries

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as retrieving 'top-scoring' entries but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only. The safety profile (non-destructive) is implied but not stated, and no details about rate limits or permissions are provided.

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 very concise—one sentence plus a parameter hint—with no redundant information. However, it could be more structured (e.g., separate sections for purpose, parameters, behavior) without added length. The efficiency earns a high score, but missing details reduce perfection.

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 the tool has no output schema and the description does not hint at the return format (e.g., list of entry objects, fields, or ordering), it leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect. The two parameters are well-documented in the schema, but the description does not compensate for the missing output schema or provide context about the response structure.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., limit range and default). The phrase 'Your agent's own' reinforces the agent_id parameter's role, but this is minimal added value. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies 'Your agent's own top-scoring winning entries', clearly indicating the resource (own winning entries) and action (get). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_winning_entries' which likely returns entries from all users.

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 phrase 'reference your strongest examples' implies use for retrieving top-performing entries, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. With multiple sibling tools like 'get_my_history' and 'get_winning_entries', explicit criteria for choosing this tool would improve score.

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