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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: newest-first ordering and a concrete cost of 5 credits. It could further clarify pagination or rate-limit behavior, but the credit cost is a meaningful addition.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by ordering, filtering, and cost. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety traits, so the description need not explain return structure. It adequately covers the tool's data scope, ordering, filtering, and cost, though it remains silent on how this tool relates to similar scoring siblings.

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 all five parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description only mentions season filtering, adding no substantive meaning beyond what the schema already provides for limit, offset, league, player_id, and season. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 and scope: a player's tournament-by-tournament record including finish, score, earnings, and round-level details. This is more granular than get_player or get_player_stats, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_scorecard, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Use for a player's tournament-by-tournament record' gives implied usage context, and 'filter by season' clarifies one filtering option. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_player_stats, get_scorecard, or get_head_to_head, which is a notable gap in a crowded sibling set.

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