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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds domain context (a tournament can exist without courts but cannot be organised) but says nothing about permissions, duplicate handling, or what happens on re-adding, so it adds moderate value over 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence is somewhat elaborate in explaining the organisational consequence, but it earns its place by justifying why courts matter rather than padding.

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 simple creation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies enough domain rationale to call it correctly. It could be stronger on edge cases (duplicate names, position defaults) but covers the essentials.

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%, so all four parameters (name, position, session_token, tournament_id) are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description only ties courts back to update_fixture's court argument and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 (Add) and resource (court, pitch or table), and explicitly distinguishes its role from siblings like update_fixture, whose court argument depends on this data. An agent can tell what it creates and why it matters 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?

Gives clear context for when courts are needed (the schedule places matches on them, the projector groups by them), implying use before scheduling fixtures. It does not explicitly name read alternatives like list_courts or state prerequisites, so it falls short of a 5.

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