wta_tournament

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds that no auth is needed ('Auth: none needed') and explicitly lists the return structure, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't discuss error handling, but that's not a major gap given the 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 with a concise definition, a clear 'Returns' block, a practical example, and an auth note. It avoids repeating schema content and every sentence adds value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it 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 simple read-only lookup, the description covers all essential aspects: request construction (including ID source and URL pattern), response fields, and authentication requirements. With no output schema, the explicit field list compensates adequately. The example further grounds the usage. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters with clear explanations. The description goes further by linking groupId to a real example (901 = Australian Open), showing the combined #/901/2025# path, and specifying that IDs originate from wta_tournaments. This adds meaningful usage context on top of the 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 what the tool does: returns one tournament edition identified by tournamentGroup id and year. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wta_tournaments by focusing on a single edition, and it provides a concrete example (groupId 901, year 2025) that leaves no ambiguity.

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 contextual guidance: IDs come from wta_tournaments, implying a two-step flow. It also explains the URL path pattern. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over related siblings like wta_tournament_matches, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer the right scenario.

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