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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: this is non-executing and non-spending ('Advisory only; never starts a run or spends'). It also reveals the return contract (an id) despite there being no output schema. It omits auth requirements, error behavior, and whether requests are persisted.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, its safety posture, and the required follow-up call. The safety constraint is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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?

It compensates well for the missing output schema by naming the returned id and the follow-up tool, and it covers the non-execution semantics. It does not help the agent populate the rich, required 'need' payload, which is the main remaining gap for a tool whose only argument is that object.

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 0% and the single 'need' parameter is a deeply nested object with many enum-constrained fields (requester.kind, adaptation.kind, priorities, constraints). The description only names the schema version ('need.v1') and adds no meaning to any of these fields, leaving the schema to do all the work.

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+resource ('Request a tournament') and names the contract ('need.v1'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling submit_need or explain how it relates to get_auto_tournament, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

'Advisory only; never starts a run or spends' implies the context in which this is appropriate, and 'Follow the returned id with get_need' gives the next step. However, it never states when to prefer this over submit_need or get_auto_tournament, so the routing decision is left implicit.

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