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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that for a tournament that ended early, it returns 'placements-so-far,' which is not obvious from the annotations or schema. This extra detail enhances transparency.

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 that efficiently conveys the primary purpose and the key edge case. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or vague phrasing. It is well-structured for a simple tool.

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?

For a read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a notable behavioral edge case. It does not explain the return format, but the output schema exists to provide that detail. The description is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 for the single parameter tournament_key, including a clear description that it starts with 'tk_'. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already 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 final placements, with the nuance of placements-so-far for early-ended tournaments. It is specific about the resource (placements) but uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, slightly reducing clarity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_standings by focusing on 'final' results.

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 this tool is used when final placements are needed, including early-ended tournaments. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like get_standings or get_schedule, nor does it state any exclusions. The usage context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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