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 real behavioral context beyond that: cursor-based pagination via after_match_number and filtering by state/round, which an agent would not infer from the annotations. It still omits default page size and pagination termination behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the returned fields come first and the filtering/pagination affordances follow. The opening is a verbless fragment, which slightly weakens front-loading of the action.

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 annotations cover safety. What remains missing is meaningful: default page size for limit, the tournament_key format requirement, and whether after_match_number is a match number or an opaque cursor.

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 coverage is only 20% (only tournament_key is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It covers state and round semantics and explains after_match_number as a pagination cursor, but leaves limit and the required tournament_key format unspecified in prose.

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 states the resource (matches) and the payload it returns (sides, scores, courts, times), plus the two filter axes and pagination mechanism. It is clearly a listing tool, but it never distinguishes itself from near-siblings like get_results or get_schedule, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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?

'Filter by state or round; paginate with after_match_number for large tournaments' implies when the filters and cursor are useful. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus get_results/get_schedule, and no guidance on expected defaults or when to stop paging.

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