flashscore_tournament_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by explaining the pagination model: page 1 is embedded in the tournament page, later pages follow the Show more feed, and event_count should be summed until total_events is reached. It also notes the feed is public. It stops short of describing error behavior or full output shape, but core behavior is transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. Every sentence contributes either to what the tool returns or how pagination works.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must compensate for return-value documentation. It mentions event_count and total_events but not other fields. It also does not explain how to obtain a valid path or whether 'results or fixtures' is determined by the path. The pagination guidance is helpful, but some gaps remain for a fully self-sufficient description.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how page relates to the feed sequence and how event_count/total_events should be used across pages. It does not give concrete path examples, but the added pagination semantics justify a 4.

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 returns 'a page of the public results or fixtures feed' for a tournament season, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct enough from siblings like flashscore_tournament_seasons and flashscore_tournament_standings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need tournament season results or fixtures. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like flashscore_scores or flashscore_tournament_seasons, and no alternatives are named.

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