Beleeg (public, no account)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: the no-membership access model and a per-value summary of what is returned (standings, roster, lineups, bracket), which matters since there is no output schema.

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-loads purpose and access model, then uses a clean per-enum bullet list. Slightly long, but every bullet carries the required argument plus expected payload, so little is wasted.

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?

Covers the gaps annotations and schema leave open: access/auth model, the enum-to-parameter mapping, and a sketch of return contents in the absence of an output schema. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 already 100%, setting a baseline of 3, but the description earns above baseline by mapping each `what` enum value to its required argument (slug, match_id, tournament_id, league_slug) and describing the content of each result — richer than the schema's terse 'Used with what: ...' notes.

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 ('look up') and resource ('public page') and immediately scopes it with 'what anyone can see on Beleeg — a league, team, match or tournament public page — no membership needed.' This cleanly separates it from the sibling write/admin tools (start_league, start_tournament, send_feedback).

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 clear context for when to use it: public data that requires no membership, with an explicit 'Read-only' framing and the requirement to pick `what` plus the listed slug/id. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for member-visible data, so it falls just short of the 5 bar.

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

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

Annotations only declare this is a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the Beleeg team reads submissions to prioritize work, nothing happens automatically, no one replies, and personal details (names, emails, phone numbers) must never be included. It does not mention any rate limits or what the call returns, but the privacy prohibition and no-reply semantics are substantive added context.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence carries a distinct constraint (attribution, privacy, no-reply escalation back to the user). The final sentence is long and packs three ideas, but none of it is filler for a tool with this much policy attached.

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 no explanation, and the description covers triggers, required content, privacy rules, and the expectation of no follow-up. The three parameters are all documented in-schema. What remains thin is what happens after submission beyond 'the team reads these,' but that is minor for a fire-and-forget feedback tool.

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 100% and each parameter already carries a description and example (e.g. trying_to's "move all of Saturday's games to Sunday"). The description's 'Say what they wanted and, if one did, which tool fell short' essentially restates the schema fields at a high level, adding intent framing but no new format or constraint detail.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Send Beleeg a note') and defines the exact triggering conditions: the assistant cannot do something the person asked for, a tool was confusing, or a wrong answer was given. Siblings (look up, start league, start tournament) are functionally unrelated, so no disambiguation is needed and none is missed.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use conditions and an important counter-instruction: because nothing is done automatically and nobody replies, the agent must still tell the person what could not be done and, where possible, point them to where in Beleeg they can do it themselves. This is exactly the routing decision an agent needs and is not inferable elsewhere.

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

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, openWorld=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds substantial behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: the claim_url/is-it-theirs ownership flow, that sign-in alone does not transfer ownership, that invites stay unsent until the organizer keeps the league, the 30-day removal, and concrete rate limits (3/organizer/day, 5/caller/day, 3 pending).

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 purpose and claim mechanics, and almost every sentence carries operational value (claim_url handling, limits, dedup rule, confirmation requirement). Slight redundancy: ownership is restated ('Signing in alone does not make it theirs' vs 'it is theirs only once they keep it'), and the keep/discard flow is mentioned twice.

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 an output schema exists, return-value detail is not required, and the description still covers the full operational picture: creation side effects, ownership/claim flow, invite deferral, expiry, rate limits, and the mandatory confirmation step. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so all ten parameters are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description reinforces a few constraints (organizer email must be asked for and never guessed, team-name capitalization/spacing normalization) but adds little parameter detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('Creates a real league on Beleeg right away') with a clear scope qualifier: for someone without a Beleeg account. This cleanly separates it from the sibling prepare_create_league / prepare_* family, which only stage actions.

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 ('someone who does not have a Beleeg account yet'), prerequisites (ask for the email, never guess), and a required pre-call step ('Tell the person what you are about to create and get a yes BEFORE calling this; there is no separate confirm step'), plus fallback behavior when Beleeg refuses.

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

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important behavior: the bracket is held for the organizer until they claim it, signing in alone is insufficient, nobody else can see entrants until it is kept, and unclaimed brackets are removed after 30 days. It also states concrete limits: up to 64 entrants (32 for round robin), 3 per organizer email per day, 5 per caller per day, and at most 3 waiting leagues or brackets. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 long but front-loaded: it states the core action first, then the claim process, visibility rules, retention, limits, and pre-call confirmation. Every sentence carries operational information needed to avoid mistakes, and there is no redundant filler. The density is justified by the complexity of the tool.

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 and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the missing behavioral context thoroughly: accountless creation, claim flow, visibility, retention, rate limits, and confirmation requirements. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema is present. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and guide the user afterward.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including entrants, format, bestOf, and organizerEmail. The description reinforces a few constraints, such as entrant limits and pair naming, but adds no parameter syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides. With full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a real standalone tournament bracket on Beleeg.' It immediately distinguishes the tool from a league-creation sibling by stating the bracket 'is never attached to an existing league or organization.' It also clarifies the no-account use case, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 clearly defines the usage context: for someone without a Beleeg account, creating a standalone bracket rather than one attached to a league or organization. It also gives workflow guidance such as asking for the organizer's email, never guessing it, and getting a yes before calling. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool such as beleeg_start_league, so it stops short of the full when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance.

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