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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that results include surface, indoor, host city/country, and category 'where curated,' which sets expectations about data completeness. This goes beyond simple scoping.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and object. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, the stable ID context, and the returned fields without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity, an output schema, rich annotations, and fully documented parameters, the description is complete. It explains the catalogue's role, the nature of the ID space, and the curated return fields, giving an agent sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (tour, limit, query), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value, only hinting that query relates to tournament name via 'tournament catalogue.' With schema coverage this high, a baseline of 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 'Search the tournament catalogue,' a specific verb plus resource that clearly states the action. It further distinguishes the tool by explaining this is the stable id space that match objects carry as tournament_id, setting it apart from sibling search tools like search_archive_matches or get_tournament.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to search the tournament catalogue, especially to resolve tournament IDs referenced by matches. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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