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

The description states 'List entries', which strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. This direct contradiction means the description misleads the agent about the tool's safety profile and side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and scope immediately and is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 two-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the core purpose is communicated. However, the description does not address the surprising annotation flags, leaving a gap in behavioral context that an agent would need to resolve.

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 (session_token and tournament_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only that the listing is scoped to a tournament, which is already implied by the required tournament_id parameter, so it provides little extra meaning.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('entries'), and clarifies that entries are participants, which is helpful. It scopes the action to a tournament, but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like list_tournaments or list_standings beyond that scope.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_standings or list_stages. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'in a tournament', leaving the agent to infer the appropriate situation.

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