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

The description says 'List', which strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, yet annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. This is a direct contradiction, and the description does not explain the destructive or open-world behavior.

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 is appropriately sized for a one-parameter 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 tool whose annotations indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior, the description should clarify why a 'list' operation carries those traits. Without that, the description is incomplete despite the simple schema.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that session_token comes from create_tournament. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 (tournaments), plus a scoping qualifier (this session can act on). It is easy to distinguish from get_tournament, create_tournament, and the other list_* siblings.

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 phrase 'this session can act on' implies the tool is for session-scoped tournament discovery, but it does not state when to prefer this over get_tournament or any sibling. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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