wta_tournament

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It reveals the tool returns read-only data and lists all fields, but fails to mention error behavior, caching, or that it never modifies data. Basic transparency is present.

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 (two sentences plus return structure and example), front-loaded with the core purpose and usage hint, and contains no redundant information.

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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description provides a complete return structure, parameter explanations, and an example. It covers all essential aspects for a lookup tool with two simple parameters.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining that groupId is a tournament group id (with example 901=Australian Open) and year is the edition year. This adds crucial meaning beyond the raw integer schema.

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 it retrieves one tournament edition by groupId and year, specifies exact output metadata, and distinguishes from the sibling tool wta_tournaments (list) by focusing on a single edition with full details.

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 explains that IDs come from wta_tournaments and gives an example, implying a two-step workflow. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like wta_tournament_matches, which could help avoid confusion.

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