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

Annotations already declare read-only safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it costs 2 credits, draw defaults to main, tour defaults to atp, and WTA requires league='wta' on the shared endpoint. It does not contradict annotations.

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 dense but well-structured: it front-loads the main purpose, then specifies draw, tour, endpoint nuance, and cost. Every sentence contributes useful information without waste.

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 output schema exists, the description need not restate return values, but it still provides enough context about what is returned, defaults, cost, and endpoint handling. It is complete for an agent to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents the parameters. The description adds valuable meaning by clarifying the default draw, the tour values, and the non-obvious mapping of WTA requests to league='wta' on the shared endpoint.

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 states a specific verb+resource: retrieving a tournament's draw and results, including singles matches grouped by round, scores, seeds, and finalists. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_match, get_matches, and list_tournaments.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool (for a tournament's draw and results) and explains the draw and tour options, including the shared endpoint nuance for WTA. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear.

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