pandascore_tournaments

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified, advises inspecting actual payloads, and specifies the auth requirement (PANDASCORE_TOKEN). This is useful behavioral caveat 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 well-structured: purpose, return shape, reliability caveat, example, and auth. It is longer than minimal but every sentence adds value, and the caveat about unverified shape is important. The main purpose is front-loaded, though the format could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a detailed return shape, which is essential. It also includes an example, auth requirement, and an explicit warning about data reliability. Missing is any guidance on when to use this tool instead of sibling Pandascore endpoints, but the core functional context is present.

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 parameters (page, per_page, filter_videogame) already have descriptions. The description adds a concrete example ({"filter_videogame": "lol"}) and clarifies that filter_videogame is a title slug, reinforcing the optional one-title filter. This goes slightly beyond schema alone.

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 identifies the tool as returning tournaments (upcoming, running, past) with optional filtering by title, which distinguishes it from sibling Pandascore tools like matches, series, and leagues. The verb is implied rather than explicit ('Tournaments' as a noun phrase), but the resource and scope are specific.

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 through the phrase 'optionally for one title,' which maps to the filter_videogame parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like pandascore_matches or pandascore_series, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond an auth key.

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