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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the payload contents (players, draws, results) and that it is 'full' and 'structured', which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and content, followed by a brief usage note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity (one parameter), an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, content, and usage context. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists, and sibling distinctions are clear.

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 with a clear description for the only parameter (tournament_key). The description does not add further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already carries the load.

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 'Full structured export of the tournament document (players, draws, results)' with a specific verb (export), resource (tournament document), and content scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_results (specific data) and get_pdf (PDF format), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 context ('for the organiser's own records or data portability') that implies when to use it, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It is better than no guidance but stops short of explicit exclusions like 'use get_results for a single section'.

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