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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: newest-first ordering, pagination via before_id, and that IDs are global with gaps. These details go beyond the annotations and help set expectations about the data returned.

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 compact: two short sentences that front-load the purpose and then add pagination details. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition of schema annotations.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers purpose, pagination, and ID behavior. It could be more explicit that the log is scoped to the specified tournament, but that is implied by the required tournament_key. Overall, it is sufficient for a simple read-only listing tool.

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 only 33% (only tournament_key described). The description compensates by explaining before_id as a pagination token and noting that IDs are global with gaps. Limit is not described, but its constraints are in the schema and its meaning is self-evident.

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 it provides a 'chronological record of every change (newest first)' and positions it as the answer to 'who changed that?'. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_results or get_schedule.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to see change history or who changed something), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or explicit alternative guidance.

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