get-event-awards

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

With no annotations, the description alone carries the transparency burden. It discloses the type of data returned (team winners, individual winners, award details), but does not mention pagination, authentication, or any limitations. This is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is free of redundancy and gets directly to the point.

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?

The tool has a low-complexity GET operation with a clear description and complete schema, but no output schema or annotations. The description adequately summarizes return content, though it does not address edge cases like empty results or pagination, leaving minor gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter details beyond the schema; it merely restates the event context. No extra value is provided for the optional team and winner filters.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves awards information for a specific VEX event, using the verb 'Get' with a specific resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like get-team-awards by emphasizing event-level awards rather than team-level awards.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving event awards, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like get-team-awards or get-event-details. No exclusions or contextual conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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