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?

Annotations only say non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: the claim_url handoff, the organizer-keep-or-discard flow, the waiting-for-organizer visibility state, 30-day removal, daily creation limits, and the concurrent-pending cap. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the claim flow is reiterated several times ('to take it over they open the claim_url', 'Signing in alone does not make it theirs', 'asked whether to keep... theirs only once they keep it'), which is repetitive. Much of the operational instruction earns its place; the redundancy does not.

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 bracket-creation tool with a non-trivial claim/expiry lifecycle, the description covers limits, expiry, visibility, prerequisites, and failure handling, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Nothing essential 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 every parameter including organizerEmail, entrants, format, and bestOf is already documented, and the description's mentions of email/entrants largely restate the schema's own 'ask for it; never guess' note. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 standalone tournament bracket) and immediately narrows the scope: 'never attached to an existing league or organization.' This distinguishes it from league/tournament creation siblings without the agent opening either 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?

Gives clear triggering context ('for someone who does not have a Beleeg account yet'), prerequisites (ask for email, get a yes before calling, no separate confirm step), and a fallback path if Beleeg refuses. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool to prefer for the account-holder case, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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