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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the tool's free nature, what it returns (open pots, finished pots, winners, payout transactions), and adjacent workflow requirements for joining. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but the read-only nature is reasonably conveyed by 'List'.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core listing purpose, then adds relevant payout and joining details. The joining instructions are slightly beyond the tool's direct scope but are concise and useful for an agent deciding next steps.

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 zero input parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation. It covers what is listed, the free nature, payout terms, and how joining would work afterward. Minor gaps like pagination or recency windows are not critical here.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description adds useful context about entry fees and payout details, which further helps an agent interpret the data this tool exposes.

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 action ('List AIARENA tournament pots') and clearly defines the resource scope: open pots and recently finished pots with winners and payout txs. It distinguishes itself from related siblings like aiarena_tournament_create, aiarena_register, and aiarena_queue by being the listing tool.

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 makes the basic purpose evident and adds workflow context about joining via a reservation endpoint, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicitly differentiated from the aiarena_* sibling tools.

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