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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It reveals key side effects: entry fee via x402, automatic single-elimination bracket, 85% payout on Base L2, and returned instructions. It does not mention what happens if the pot never fills or other failure modes, but covers the main transactional consequences.

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?

Three dense sentences, each conveying essential info: creation, cost, automation, payout, and return value. No filler or repetition; action is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the tournament lifecycle, payment mechanics, and return value. Minor gaps remain around edge cases (unfilled pot, cancellation) but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for min_players via the 2-8 player range and defaults, but the 'name' parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description. This leaves a required parameter underspecified.

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 ('Create') and resource ('open AIARENA tournament pot') with a clear player range (2-8). It distinguishes itself from siblings like aiarena_tournament_list by emphasizing creation and automatic bracket execution.

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 clearly implies this tool is for starting a new tournament pot, and contrasts with listing/registering/queueing tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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