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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond the annotations: if matches are pending, the tournament ends early and standings freeze. It also reveals the preview/confirm mechanism. Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds situational context about what happens to pending matches, which is valuable for the agent.

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 sentences, with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence provides necessary context: what happens on early end and the preview/confirm process. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the 100% schema coverage, and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the critical behavior (pending matches, freeze) and the confirmation flow, so the agent can select and invoke correctly without further information.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining the preview/confirm flow, which directly maps to the 'confirm' parameter. It doesn't detail tournament_key or request_id, but the schema already handles those. The added semantic about preview/confirm elevates it to 4.

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's purpose: 'Finish the tournament.' It specifies the verb and resource, and adds key behavioral detail about early ending and freezing standings, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_tournament or update_settings.

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 provides clear usage context: preview first, then confirm to apply. It implies when to use (when you want to end the tournament) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios. Still, the two-phase preview/confirm guidance is a strong usage guideline.

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