wta_tournaments

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses pagination behavior (list spans all years), the full response structure, and the cross-tool navigation pattern. This adds significant behavioral context that is not available from annotations alone.

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-organized with a clear introduction, a response shape, usage guidance, an example, and auth info. However, the field list is repeated almost identically in the opening sentence and the 'Returns:' section, which is mildly redundant but not detrimental.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully covers return values, pagination, and how to use results with related tools. It also addresses auth and provides an example, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The input schema already defines page and pageSize with descriptions and defaults (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining pagination semantics ('the list spans all years') and providing an explicit example with pageSize: 50, which goes beyond 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 identifies the tool as 'The WTA tournament calendar' and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating that a row's tournamentGroup.id + year should be used for wta_tournament / wta_tournament_matches, making its role as a list/calendar distinct.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Page through with page/pageSize (the list spans all years)' and explains how to use the output to access related tools ('Take a row's tournamentGroup.id + year for wta_tournament / wta_tournament_matches'). It also notes that no auth is needed, setting expectations for invocation.

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