get_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden alone. It does signal that the output is the 'full text' of a section (as opposed to a summary), which is useful behavioral information, but it says nothing about read-only nature, auth requirements, or what happens with an invalid competition/section.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource and its possible values. The value enumeration duplicates the schema enum, which is slightly redundant but aids quick scanning.

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?

An output schema exists so return format needn't be described, but for a 3-parameter tool the description omits the meaning of 'part' and the scoping behavior of 'competition' (default null — default competition?). Those gaps make the definition under-specified for the tool's actual complexity.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only re-enumerates the already-visible section enum values. The 'part' parameter (presumably splitting a section into parts) and the nullable 'competition' parameter with its default are left completely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource — retrieving the full text of a single section — and enumerates the valid sections, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_brief or fetch_competition, which also return competition content.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_brief (summary) versus get_section (full text). Usage is only implied by the section list.

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