Get tournament info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of describing behavior. It lists the information returned, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any prerequisites or limitations. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists concrete data points. Every word contributes value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description explains its main output. However, the 'top' parameter is not explained, and the description does not clarify the role of the tournament ID beyond the schema's name. The existence of an output schema covers return structure but not parameter semantics, leaving a moderate gap.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not mention 'tournament_id' or 'top' at all, leaving the purpose of 'top' unclear. The description lists return fields but nothing about inputs.

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 clearly states the tool provides 'Details and standings for a Lichess arena or Swiss tournament' and lists specific data (name, time control, player count, games played, leaderboard). This distinguishes it from sibling tools about players, games, puzzles, and analysis, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context that this is the tool for tournament details and standings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but its scope is distinct from the sibling tools, making when to use it clear enough.

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