get_user_contest_ranking

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the operation is read-only and requires no auth, and it states the return shape (JSON with rating, ranking, per-contest performance). It omits potential failure modes or rate limits, but for a simple read-only lookup the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Three sentences, all informative and non-redundant. The core action and return value are front-loaded, and the sibling guidance appears at the end without diluting the primary message.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contextual needs: what it returns, that it requires no auth, and when to choose it over the sibling. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both username and attended already documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves a user's contest ranking and participation history.' It also distinguishes itself from get_user_profile by naming the exact difference (contest performance vs general stats), so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the alternative ('Use get_user_profile for general stats and ranking') and when to use this tool ('use this specifically for contest performance data'). This is direct routing guidance with no inference required.

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