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

Annotations already state it's not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds valuable context about temporary accounts tied to the connection and the persistence of the created resource, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not cover permissions or error conditions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core action, then explains the account behavior in a single sentence. No wasted words, though the sentence is slightly complex.

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?

The description covers the creation behavior and account implications, which are the key points for an agent. With annotations covering safety hints and a complete schema, no output schema is needed. However, it could mention the draft status and typical next steps more explicitly.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb+resource ('Create a draft tournament') and elaborates the account-scoping behavior. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_handoff or get_tournament beyond implicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description gives context about what happens when signed in vs not signed in, and mentions create_handoff as an alternative for ownership transfer, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus other sibling tools or when not to use it.

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