list_contributor_network_benchmarks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that benchmarks are platform-scheduled (not user-triggered) and specifies the scope, but does not describe side effects, authentication requirements beyond scope, or rate limits. Some behavioral context is provided but not comprehensive.

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 concise: three short sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence provides the core purpose, followed by critical behavioral and parameter details. Every sentence adds value.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination (limit, cursor), filtering (search, model_id, etc.), or the meaning of 'benchmark summaries.' A more complete description would cover all parameters and expected output.

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?

Only 2 of 9 parameters (sort_by and sort_direction) are described with allowed values. The remaining parameters (limit, cursor, search, model_id, problem_set, competition_id, min_avg_accuracy) lack any description despite 0% schema description coverage. The description fails to compensate for this gap.

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's purpose: 'List platform-run benchmark summaries for published items.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_contributor_network_item_benchmark' (which retrieves a single item's benchmark).

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 mentions the scope ('contributor-network.read') implying read-only usage, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_contributor_network_item_benchmark' or other list tools. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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