wta_tournament_players

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Auth: none needed', the per-discipline event structure, and that final results (winner/runnerUp/eliminated) are included. It also clarifies that one event per discipline exists (LS, LD). No contradiction with 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 relatively concise but has some redundancy: the return structure is presented twice (once in the opening and again under 'Returns:'). It efficiently includes event type code definitions, an example, and auth note. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, and no unnecessary fluff is present.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It provides the full JSON return shape, explains event types, gives a concrete example call, and notes auth requirements. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most contexts.

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%, with both groupId and year already clearly documented including their roles and sources. The tool description adds an example call and reiterates that parameters are required part of the URL path, but it does not provide substantially new semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose as retrieving 'the entry list / draw for one tournament edition' and provides a detailed return structure including players, seeds, entry types, and final results. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wta_tournament_matches by focusing on the player entry list rather than match outcomes, aided by the explicit example of Australian Open 2025.

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 a clear context of what the tool does and includes an example request, implying when to use it (when needing tournament entry lists/seeds). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so the usage guidance relies on inference rather than explicit direction.

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