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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about lookup semantics, error behavior for invalid ids, or region-specific availability. The one-word description discloses nothing beyond the name.

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?

It is brief, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness; a single noun is not a front-loaded summary of anything useful. Calibration treats this pattern as a 2.

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 2-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate; an agent gets no information about the return payload or lookup behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is present.

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 the schema already documents both 'id' and 'region' (with its enum), and the description adds no further parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 for fully-covered schemas applies.

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 is the single noun 'Tournament', which merely restates the resource in the tool name without any verb, scope, or action. It gives an agent no way to tell what tournaments_by_id actually returns or how it differs from the sibling 'tournaments' or 'og_tournaments_by_id'.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the list endpoint or the team-by-team endpoint. An agent must guess the relationship between this tool and its many siblings entirely.

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