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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds return structure (sides, scores, courts, times), filter capabilities, and pagination behavior (after_match_number). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 short sentences front-load the core return value and then present filters and pagination. No filler or redundancy.

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 list tool with output schema and annotations, the description covers what is returned, how to filter, and how to paginate large tournaments. Missing details like default ordering are not essential given the output schema and schema constraints.

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?

Only tournament_key is described in the schema (20% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the semantics of state (filter), round (filter), and after_match_number (pagination). Limit is self-explanatory with schema min/max, so overall good.

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 title 'List matches' plus description 'Matches with sides, scores, courts and times' clearly identifies a read/list operation for match details. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning filters and pagination, though it lacks an explicit verb in the description and doesn't reference alternatives.

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 states filters (state/round) and pagination for large tournaments, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_schedule or get_results, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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