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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavior: sort direction tied to input shape (ascending for a season, latest-first otherwise) and a cost disclosure ("Costs 1 credit"), which is the kind of billing context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then filters, then cost — the ordering is sensible and there is little waste. The opening "Use to find tournaments" is mildly redundant with the following sentence but serves as an intent hook.

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 enumerating return fields is a bonus rather than a necessity, and annotations carry the safety profile. The main completeness gap is league scope — an agent could reasonably read this as golf-only and never discover lpga/liv/dpwt/kornferry from the description.

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 six params are documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description clarifies season/status/major filtering semantics but says nothing about the league enum (5 values, golf default), limit, or offset paging — the one parameter whose default is least obvious is left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ("Lists a season's tournaments") and enumerates the payload fields (dates, status, purse, major flag, winner, winning score, field size, courses), which separates it from leaderboard/scorecard siblings. It never explicitly names an alternative tool, so sibling differentiation is inferred from the return payload rather than stated.

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 to find tournaments" plus "Filter by season, status and major" gives clear conditions for invoking it. There are no explicit exclusions or "use X instead" routing for the overlapping siblings (get_schedule, get_leaderboard), so it stops 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.