spicerack_tournament_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description confirms a safe read operation ('Get full standings and decklists') but adds no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence states purpose, the second provides prerequisite workflow. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the core action and prerequisite. It mentions both standings and decklists. However, without an output schema, details about return structure or pagination could be helpful, but the description is sufficient for a read-only lookup 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all 5 parameters, each already described in the schema. The description adds no extra detail beyond referencing the 'tournament_id' parameter. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema carries the burden.

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's action: 'Get full standings and decklists for a specific tournament.' It specifies the resource (tournament by its Spicerack ID) and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'spicerack_recent_tournaments' by explicitly directing users to use that tool first to find the ID.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Look up a tournament by its Spicerack ID. Use 'recent_tournaments' first to find tournament IDs.' This tells the agent the prerequisite step and when to use this tool, effectively communicating the intended workflow.

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