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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: it does not generate tournaments or select defaults, and its returned scope narrows based on the sport argument. It does not describe the shape of the response, which the absent output schema would have required clarification for.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary use case and tightly sequenced: purpose, non-goal, sport-handling rules, and a display caveat. Dense but every clause carries operational meaning; minor redundancy in the sport-permission sentence.

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?

With one optional enum param, full schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description covers the key decisions an agent must make: whether to call, with or without sport, and how to present results. Only the response shape is unaddressed, which is acceptable without an output schema but leaves a small gap.

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 100% and the enum is documented, so baseline is 3. The description adds interpretation beyond the schema: omit sport when unknown, ask the user rather than infer, and scope results to the confirmed sport's formats.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('get supported tournament options' framed as discovery tool) and explicitly names what it does NOT do ('Does not generate a tournament or select defaults'). This clearly distinguishes it from the generate_* siblings, which produce tournaments.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('generic tournament request with no confirmed sport or format'), when-not (not for generation/defaulting), and conditional routing rules per sport. The instruction to ask Pickleball or padel first, and to return only the confirmed sport's formats, removes ambiguity.

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