Get a Quera event

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotated behavior: the categories of data the page yields and, more usefully, the data categories explicitly absent (participant lists, rankings), which prevents misdirected calls. It does not discuss pagination or response shape, but with no output schema the content enumeration compensates well.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second front-loads the ordering constraint and the exclusion. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only fetch with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the returned content categories, the prerequisite call, and the unavailable data. The only minor gap is any hint about response size or pagination, which is unlikely to matter for a single page fetch.

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 slug property description already explains provenance ('Event slug from a qr_contests url ... e.g. codecup8-algorithm'). The description's 'Call after qr_contests' reinforces that provenance but adds no new syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Get') with a concrete resource ('Quera event or competition page') and enumerates the content types it covers (CodeCup, hackathon, contest series) plus the fields returned (schedule, prizes, price, sub-events). This clearly separates it from the listing-oriented siblings such as qr_contests and qr_problems, though the differentiation is only implied via the sequencing note rather than stated outright.

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 gives an explicit sequencing rule ('Call after qr_contests') that tells the agent when in a workflow to invoke it, and an explicit exclusion ('Participant lists and rankings are not offered') that prevents a doomed call. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for those excluded data types, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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