Get Dota 2 tournament

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

Annotations already declare this tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful context about what data is included (metadata, participants, placements) and explicitly excludes match loading. This extra behavioral detail beyond annotations is valuable, though the return format is covered by the output schema.

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 two sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and input requirement, and the second sentence provides a critical exclusion and sibling tool alternative. Highly efficient for the information density.

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 the low complexity (1 required parameter, no enums, simple input), high schema coverage (100%), and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, what it requires, and what it does not do, leaving no gaps for an AI agent to guess.

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 coverage is 100% with only one parameter (canonical_title) already described as 'Exact canonical_title returned by search_dota2_entities.' The description reinforces that it must be an exact Liquipedia canonical title, which adds clarity beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the explicit linkage to search_dota2_entities earns a 4.

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 what the tool does: 'Get tournament metadata, participants, and placements' from a specific resource (Liquipedia canonical title). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating what it does not load (matches) and pointing to list_dota2_matches for that purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: when metadata, participants, and placements are needed from an exact canonical title. It also warns against using it for match data and directs to the alternative sibling tool list_dota2_matches for schedules or results.

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