tab_tournament

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: auth requirements, that it works without a key, and that additional credentials unlock more data. The return shape is also disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states what the tool returns first, then gives the return shape, an example, and auth notes. No sentence is wasted and the structure makes key facts easy to scan.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return structure, a concrete invocation example, auth expectations, and the relationship to competition pages. All required parameters are already documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds a concrete example mapping sport, competition, and tournament to real values, plus the note about raw spaces in tournament names, but does not substantially extend the schema's parameter definitions.

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 defines the resource: a tournament page nested inside a competition, returning matches with top markets. The 'Returns:' line and concrete Wimbledon example make the tool's function unambiguous and distinguish it from competition- or match-level tools.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for tournament-structured sports and is used when a competition page lists its events as a tournament. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the nesting relationship provides enough guidance for correct selection.

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