get_tournament_series

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses some behavioral traits, such as 'fuzzy match' for league_name, limit default, and days_back filtering. However, it does not describe the exact structure of the returned data or any potential side effects (though it is a read operation). It adds moderate context beyond the schema but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured. The summary line states the purpose, the 'Use this for' line gives context, and the Args list is organized and to the point. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague wording.

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?

The description covers the essential context for a filterable read tool: purpose, usage, and full parameter semantics. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It could be slightly more explicit about the optional nature of all filters, but that is evident from the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by explaining each parameter: league_name (fuzzy match), league_id (specific ID), team_name (series involving team), limit (maximum series, default 20), and days_back (only last N days). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 the tool's function: 'Get tournament series with bracket/game details' and provides a specific use case ('tournament progression analysis'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on series outcomes (Bo3/Bo5) and bracket advancement, which is distinct from match-level tools like get_pro_matches or get_league_matches.

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 usage context: 'Use this for tournament progression analysis: series results, Bo3/Bo5 outcomes, team advancement through brackets.' It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the targeted use case is clear.

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