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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral content by specifying that results are ordered by playing order and include courts and estimated times, but says nothing about what happens when no schedule exists or how limit truncation works.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, which costs a little clarity but wastes nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the low-complexity read-only nature is covered by annotations. However, the undocumented limit parameter and the absence of any usage routing leave it only minimally complete for an agent choosing among many sibling read tools.

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 50%: tournament_key has an inline description (tk_ prefix), but limit has no description in the schema and none in the tool description either. The description does not compensate for that gap by explaining what limit controls or what the default is.

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 what the tool returns: upcoming matches in playing order, including courts and estimated times. The emphasis on 'upcoming' and playing order implicitly separates it from siblings like list_matches and get_results, though no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of true 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_matches, get_results, or get_briefing, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a generated draw being required). Usage can only be inferred from the word 'Upcoming'.

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