Quera contests

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

The annotations already state readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld. The description adds behavior the annotations do not provide: page size (10 per page), sort order (newest first), the default result mix, and the fact that times use the UTC ISO format. It says nothing about rate limits or error cases, but for a read-only listing tool these details are enough.

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?

It has three tight sentences that are front-loaded with the primary no-filter behavior, followed by the category mode and a short note on data format. The fragments 'Times are UTC ISO' and 'Rankings and user profiles are not offered' earn their place, though they read slightly as notes.

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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what is needed: what each mode returns, page size and ordering, timestamp format, and what data this tool omits. Only hints about the result shape (fields per contest) are absent, which is a minor gap.

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%, so 3 is the baseline. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema: paging applies only when a category is provided, and results are 10 per page in newest-first order, which the `page` schema does not say. It does not explain organizer or contest_type semantics, but the schema already covers those.

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 uses a precise verb-and-resource pair: 'List Quera programming contests'. It also describes how the default behavior differs from the filtered behavior. It does not explain how this tool differs from close siblings such as qr_event, qr_bootcamps, or qr_courses, but it does set a clear boundary by saying that rankings and user profiles are not offered.

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?

It clearly explains the two ways to use the tool: call it with no filter to see what is running, upcoming, or recently finished, or pass a category to page through that topic's archive. That is concrete when-to-use guidance. It does not say when to avoid this tool or which sibling to use instead, so the exclusions are limited.

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