metaculus_tournament_questions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that invalid slugs return 404 and that output is 'normalized', but it omits details on return format, pagination, or rate limits. It offers some useful behavioral context but is not thorough.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not enumerate the fields in the normalized rows, leaving the agent to guess the return structure. It is adequate for a simple fetch tool but lacks details that would make it fully self-contained for an agent.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal value by reiterating that filtering is by slug, but it does not introduce any new semantics or formatting details for the parameters.

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 that the tool returns normalized Metaculus question rows for a specific public tournament, filtered by slug. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like metaculus_questions or metaculus_project_questions by explicitly scoping to tournaments.

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 implies usage context (you need a tournament slug), but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over other Metaculus tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. Clear context exists, but no direct guidance for tool selection.

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