spicerack_recent_tournaments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. Description adds no behavioral traits beyond listing data fields. It does not elaborate on open world behavior or potential variability, so the description adds modest value.

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?

Two concise sentences. First sentence states purpose and output. Second sentence provides a follow-up usage hint. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (dates, player counts, IDs) and how to use the IDs. It could mention ordering (e.g., by date descending) but is otherwise complete for a listing 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the 'format' parameter context but does not add new meaning to parameters. Mentioning output fields like dates and IDs indirectly aids understanding but doesn't enhance parameter semantics.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'recent tournaments for a format'. It specifies the data returned (dates, player counts, IDs). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning tournament_results for full details.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to get tournament IDs for use with tournament_results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other alternatives like spicerack_format_decklists.

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