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

The description discloses critical behavioral nuances: reinstate clears a result and returns the match to scheduled, corrections simply re-record, and winner is only needed when the score doesn't decide. Since annotations are all false and uninformative, this description carries the full transparency burden and meets it excellently.

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 yet dense: three sentences cover purpose, score format, outcome options, correction behavior, and winner logic. It is front-loaded with the core action and every sentence earns its place without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple outcomes, correction semantics, winner logic) and the existence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It addresses mis-entry fixes, confirms multi-result support, and aligns with the schema's idempotency note without over-explaining return values.

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?

While the schema only describes tournament_key and request_id, the description adds essential semantics for the results array fields: score format ('6-4 3-6 10-7' or '16-8'), outcome meanings with partial score allowance, and winner interpretation (a|b). This goes far beyond the schema's bare enum definitions.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Record' and the resource 'results', immediately distinguishing it from read-only sibling tools like get_results or undo_last_change. It also clarifies that it handles one or many results, making the scope unambiguous.

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 context on when to use reinstate versus re-recording, and it explains the default outcome ('completed') and partial score allowance for retirements. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the actionable guidance within the tool is strong.

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