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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the 'stable id space' relationship, the caveat that some fields are returned only 'where curated,' and the access note about working on the FREE plan.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, the return data is summarized in the second sentence, and the access note is a compact, useful addition. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given a moderate 3-parameter tool, full schema coverage, a present output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials: purpose, stable ID semantics, return fields, data caveats, and access requirements. It could mention ordering or pagination behavior, but the output schema and parameter constraints already cover the return structure and limits, so little is missing.

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 parameters (tour, limit, query) are already fully documented with defaults and constraints. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond saying this is a search; it does not describe query syntax or how tour filtering interacts with the catalogue, but the schema carries the full semantic load, so a baseline 3 is 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the tournament catalogue.' It goes beyond a generic label by defining the catalogue as the stable id space carried by match objects as tournament_id, and it lists the returned attributes, making the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishing it from get_tournament and search_archive_matches.

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 description gives clear context: this is a catalogue search suitable for resolving/match tournament IDs, and it notes the FREE plan eligibility. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer get_tournament or another sibling, but the stable-id-space explanation strongly implies the intended use case, so the guidance is clear though not exhaustive.

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