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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, fully covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, so a 3 is appropriate given the lower bar with 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It's efficient with no wasted words, though it's minimal rather than optimally structured for routing among many siblings.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and schema documentation, the description is adequate. However, with many sibling tools (list_tournaments, get_stage, get_fixture), it doesn't help the agent disambiguate when to use this tool versus alternatives, leaving a contextual gap.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Tournament ID'. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a tournament by ID'), making the retrieval operation clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_tournaments, but the 'by ID' phrasing implies single-item retrieval versus listing, which provides some differentiation.

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 implies usage (fetch a single tournament when you have its ID) but doesn't specify when to use this versus list_tournaments or other get_* siblings. No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative naming is provided.

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