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

Annotations already establish the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that pdf_url is the canonical merged document while results_pdf_url and plan_pdf_url are deprecated pre-merge variants kept for comparison. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Download links for the printable PDF') followed by essential details about the URL fields. Every sentence contributes useful information without any fluff or repetition.

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 description is complete enough for a simple link-retrieval tool with good annotations. It explains the meaning and intended use of each URL field, which is sufficient since the output schema exists and would provide structured field definitions. It lacks only an explicit pointer to alternative tools like get_pdf for the actual file.

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% for the single parameter tournament_key, so the schema already documents the parameter completely. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns 'Download links for the printable PDF' and specifies the role of each URL. It uses a specific verb+resource construction, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_pdf tool, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 by indicating that pdf_url is the merged document to 'hand this to the organiser' and that the other URLs are deprecated comparison variants. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pdf, so it falls short of a 5.

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