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

The description says 'Get', implying a safe read operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. This directly contradicts the natural meaning of the description and leaves the agent with no reliable behavioral signal.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded. However, given the contradictory annotations, this extreme brevity leaves important behavioral context unaddressed.

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 retrieval tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the bare description might normally suffice. But the annotations contradict the read-only implication, and the description does nothing to resolve or explain that inconsistency, leaving agents potentially misled.

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%, and both parameters are documented there, including the session_token requirement. The description adds only 'by ID', which is already conveyed by the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('tournament') with an ID-based scope. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling retrieval tools such as get_stage or get_fixture, nor from list_tournaments, but the resource name makes the basic purpose clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_tournaments or other retrieval siblings. The description provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers beyond the implication that an ID is required.

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