tab_tournament

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior. The description adds extra context about authentication ('works without a key' and unlocking more with credentials), and it specifies the return structure, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 efficient: a purpose statement, return shape, a concrete example, and an auth note. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 provides the return structure, an example, auth details, and usage context. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could benefit from additional notes on pagination or market details.

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?

All five parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds an example with concrete values but does not introduce significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 this tool returns a tournament page nested inside a competition, including matches and top markets. It provides a concrete example (Wimbledon) and distinguishes itself from competition-level tools by noting that competitions with an empty matches list point to this tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Competitions whose page shows matches:[] list their events here.' It also provides an example query and mentions auth requirements, but does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for contrast.

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