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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the auth model (creates an account, no token required on input), the return value's significance, and the critical irreversible property that the token is unrecoverable. It does not elaborate on the destructiveHint=true implication, but the irrecoverability warning is meaningful behavioral 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the workflow dependency, then the critical warning. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 correctly compensates by explaining that the tool returns a session_token and why that value matters. For a creation entry-point tool, the agent has everything needed to call it and handle its result.

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 both parameters including the meaning-bearing 'sport' enum are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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+resource ('Create a tournament') and then explicitly differentiates itself from all siblings by being the only tool that needs no session_token. An agent can immediately tell this is the entry point.

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?

Explains the surrounding workflow clearly: this is called first, it returns the session_token that every other tool requires, so it is the mandatory starting point. It lacks an explicit 'do not call this if you already have a token — use get_tournament instead' exclusion, but the routing context is strong.

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