apitennis_tournaments

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the auth requirement (API_TENNIS_KEY) and explicitly warns that the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified against a live response, advising the agent to inspect the actual payload. This is valuable behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 tight and front-loaded with the purpose, then includes return shape, caveat, example, and auth. The only minor inefficiency is the example duplicating the schema default, but overall every sentence adds value.

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 a simple list operation with no output schema, so the description correctly provides the return shape and a caveat about data reliability. It covers auth and example usage. It doesn't explain field semantics, but those are straightforward from names, and the unverified shape warning is appropriately included.

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 baseline 3 applies. The description adds little beyond the schema: it restates the optional event type filter and shows an example with method 'get_tournaments'. The schema already documents both parameters adequately.

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 identifies the resource as 'Tournaments' and mentions the optional event type filter, making the purpose reasonably clear. However, it lacks a specific verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not differentiate from sibling tools such as wta_tournaments. The example method 'get_tournaments' clarifies intent but is not part of the core purpose statement.

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 a concrete example of fetching all tournaments and notes the optional event_type_key filter, with a cross-reference to apitennis_events in the schema. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear for a simple list operation.

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