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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's closing 'Read-only.' merely restates that. The one genuine addition beyond annotations is the access scope ('the player may see'), which tells the agent results are permission-filtered. It says nothing about behavior when the player lacks access or the id is unknown, so with annotations carrying the safety profile a 3 is right.

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?

Purpose leads, routing follows, and every clause is functional; the long content enumeration earns its space because there is no output schema. It is dense rather than padded, though the single sprawling sentence is harder to scan than a short bulleted structure would be.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned payload (teams, members, editions, sessions, pairings, results, points, statistics, version, permissions). Sibling disambiguation is complete. The remaining gap is failure behavior when the competition is not visible to the player or the id is stale.

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 the single parameter is a UUID with format/pattern constraints and a description already pointing at list_team_competitions. The description reinforces that provenance and clarifies the parameter identifies exactly one competition whose visibility is permission-scoped, adding modest meaning over the schema. Nothing about interpretation of the id beyond what the schema says, so it is not a 5.

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 specific verb (read) and resource (one team competition) with the visibility scope 'the player may see', then enumerates what the resource contains (teams, members, editions, templates, sessions, pairings, results, points, statistics). It also names the two nearest siblings it is not (get_team_competition_archive, get_pool), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit entry condition ('use it after list_team_competitions gives the competition_id') and explicit alternatives with the conditions that select them: imported history (GALERMA, Estela) -> get_team_competition_archive, weekly club groups -> list_pools and get_pool. It even adds a downstream handling rule for conflicting official vs. computed figures.

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