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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world profile, but the description adds real context the agent cannot get elsewhere: the data comes from Chess.com's documented Published-Data API, calls are made serially (implying latency and no parallelism), and results must not be used for AI training or dataset creation. It omits error behavior for bad slugs and any rate-limit specifics, keeping it short of a 5.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded; each sentence carries distinct information (what it returns, where data comes from, licensing restriction). The legal/affiliation sentence is bulky relative to the invocation value but is legitimately necessary disclosure.

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 explained, and the single parameter is fully covered by the schema. What is missing is operational completeness: no error/not-found behavior, no rate or retry expectations beyond 'serially', and no hint on obtaining a valid slug, which matters for a single-required-param tool.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('Required source slug'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no slug format examples or hints about how slugs map to tournaments, so it does not exceed the schema's contribution.

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?

"Get one public Chess.com tournament" names a specific verb (get), resource (tournament), and cardinality (one), which separates it from sibling round/group tools. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with chesscom_tournament_round or chesscom_player_tournaments, so the differentiation is only implicit in the singular resource.

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 word "public" is the only usage constraint; there is no statement of when to prefer this over the round or player-tournament siblings, and no guidance on where the required slug comes from or what happens when a tournament is private or nonexistent. The remaining sentences address legal/provenance concerns rather than invocation guidance.

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