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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety and side-effect profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—no pagination details, output format, or ordering information. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this meets the minimum bar but adds little value.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the tool's action and resource. No wasted words, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise for an agent needing to distinguish it from 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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what an 'entry' contains, whether the list is paginated or complete, or how the result relates to tournaments. Given the rich set of sibling tools and potential for confusion, more context is needed to call this tool correctly.

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 single parameter (tournament_id) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter's expected format or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already provides complete parameter documentation.

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 generic verb+resource ('List entries') with a parenthetical clarifying that entries are participants in a tournament. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its many siblings like list_courts, list_pools, list_stages, or list_tournaments. The scope is clear but lacks the specificity needed to confidently differentiate from similar list operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about when listing entries is appropriate or how it relates to other tools like add_entry or list_standings. Without explicit usage conditions, the agent must infer intent.

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