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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot: the credit cost ('Costs 1 credit') and the payload contents (courses, defending champion). Return format is left to the output schema, which exists, so no further gap is critical.

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?

A single tight sentence: purpose and scope first, enrichment second, cost last. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the structured fields beyond a brief default reminder.

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, so return values need not be spelled out, and both parameters are fully covered by the schema plus annotations. The description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs to choose the tool: temporal scope and credit cost.

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 both parameters (days, league) are fully documented in the schema with defaults, bounds and the enum list. The description only restates the default-30-day window, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Per the rules, a 3 baseline is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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-resource pair: return what is on now and next, meaning tournaments in play or starting within N days, enriched with courses and the defending champion. That is far more concrete than the bare name 'get_schedule'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_tournaments, so a 5 is not warranted.

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?

'Use for what is on now and next' gives a clear selection context, and the default-30-days window implies the intended scope. There is no explicit when-not clause or routing to list_tournaments, 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.