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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent, externally visible operation. The description adds that it changes status to 'live', which is mutation context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, whether it can be undone, or what happens to already-live tournaments.

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 clause with no wasted words, and it immediately delivers the action and its purpose.

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?

With one required parameter, an output schema absent, and annotations covering safety flags, the description is minimally complete: it tells the agent what the tool does and the key side effect. It omits workflow prerequisites and whether the operation can fail or be reversed, leaving gaps for an agent to fill.

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 there is only one parameter, so the schema fully documents 'tournament_id'. The description doesn't add format, source, or validation details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 clear verb ('Publish') and resource ('a tournament') and clarifies the effect ('set status to live'). It is distinguishable from siblings like create_tournament or update_fixture, though without naming an alternative it stops short of the sibling differentiation required for a 5.

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 'so the display works' implies when to use it (after creating a tournament, before showing it), but it doesn't explicitly state prerequisites, timing, or when not to use it. No alternative tool is named, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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