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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does contribute one genuinely important behavioral fact — the withdrawal only works pre-start — but says nothing about whether an entry fee is refunded, whether membership is required first, or what error is returned after the start time.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the name. It is efficient, though for a state-mutating tool the terseness leaves no room for the caveats noted above.

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 two-parameter mutation with fully documented schema and no output schema, the essential invocation details are covered by structured fields. The description is thin on post-invocation behavior (refund, resulting state) and on prerequisites, which matters more here because no annotations offset that 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented, including the api_key origin and the tournament_id default (next weekly). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (withdraw) and resource (tournament) plus a scope qualifier (before it starts), which plainly distinguishes it from tournament_join, tournament_get, and tournament_list. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, but the action is 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 phrase 'before it starts' implies the timing condition under which this tool applies, so usage is inferable. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it, no pointer to tournament_get for checking start status, and no mention of what to do if the tournament has already begun.

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