Quera problem filters

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call is a one-time reference lookup ('call once') and enumerates the four categories of values returned, which is useful context given there is no output schema.

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 no filler: the first states what is returned, the second states when to call it. The content is front-loaded and every clause carries information.

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 zero-argument reference tool with no output schema, the description gives the return categories and the calling condition, which is largely sufficient. It stops short of describing the shape of the response (e.g., flat lists vs. keyed by category), a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline applies. The description does not waste space restating a schema that has no properties.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists the topic slugs, contest ids, origins and judging types accepted by qr_problems. An agent can immediately tell this is a reference/enumeration lookup and distinguish it from qr_problems, which actually queries problems.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('call once when unsure which tag or contest value to use in qr_problems'), tying invocation to a concrete decision point. It does not name what to do instead when the value is already known, but the routing is clear from the phrasing.

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