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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context not in the structured fields — data comes from Wikipedia and coverage spans the current and last season — but says nothing about result freshness, result caps, or paging behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope; the trailing sentence is a routing hint that earns its place. The first sentence is a dense noun phrase rather than a verb-led clause, which slightly slows parsing but wastes no words.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates returned fields (dates, venue, prize fund, winner, final score) and default season scope. For a six-parameter read tool whose schema is fully documented and annotations cover safety, this is close to complete, with only paging/result-limit behavior left implicit.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes further by mapping the abstract 'kind' values to real-world event categories (ranking/invitational for snooker; PDC majors, World Series, Players Championships, European Tour for darts), which helps an agent pick a valid kind without guessing.

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 names the exact resource (snooker/darts tournaments covering World Snooker Tour ranking/invitational events and PDC majors, World Series, Players Championships, European Tour) and the scope (current and last season), plus the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from get_standings, but does not differentiate from the singular sibling get_snooker_darts_tournament, leaving some ambiguity about list vs. detail.

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 explicitly routes world-ranking queries to get_standings with sport snooker or darts, which is a genuine alternative-tool hint. It gives no explicit when-not guidance or prerequisite conditions beyond that, so it stops short of a full usage contract.

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