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

Annotations declare a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not state that the tournament must exist, whether duplicate entries/seeds are rejected, or anything about the response. The one-word 'add' carries no extra disclosure.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action. No waste.

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 non-idempotent write with no output schema and no annotations covering error/idempotency semantics, the description is too thin. It never says what happens on repeat calls or invalid tournaments, leaving the agent to guess.

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% with per-parameter descriptions (name, seed, tournament_id), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or constraints, which is acceptable at full coverage.

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?

Specific verb (add) and resource (team/participant to a tournament), so the purpose is clear at a glance. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like create_tournament or add_court, but no sibling overlaps directly with adding an entry.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. Nothing tells the agent that a tournament must already exist, or that list_entries is the read-side counterpart.

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