get_my_submission

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully informs about behavior: returns single record (404 if none) for most competitions, returns paginated list for igp24-polynomial, and explains parameter effects. No contradictions.

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 well-structured: a brief one-line purpose followed by a clear breakdown of behavior per competition type. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: competition type distinctions, return types, parameter applicability, and error condition (404). It is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by detailing which parameters are relevant for which competition types (e.g., cursor/limit ignored for non-igp24), adding significant meaning beyond the schema fields.

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 clearly states the tool gets the caller's current submission for a competition. It distinguishes behavior across competition types (single record vs. paginated list) and specifies the resource and action, setting it apart from siblings like get_submission_by_id.

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 explains when to use the tool and provides parameter guidance (e.g., pass 'track' for track-based competitions, cursor/limit apply only to igp24-polynomial). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or direct references to alternative tools among siblings.

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