tournament_battles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so exceptionally: it states 'Makes one logical GET request and does not contain auto-fetch continuation pages,' explains array local limits and truncation reporting, and notes oversized records are refused without partial fields. It also discloses response integrity, e.g., nested battle references and participant records remain intact.

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 longer than average, but nearly every sentence earns its place by adding concrete measured context or behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and scoping rules; however, the detailed example counts (21, six, zero) could have been tightened without losing usefulness, so it is not maximally concise.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers call method, pagination behavior, array limits, truncation reporting, refusal of oversized records, and response integrity. It still omits details on the exact response structure beyond a few notes about participant records being intact, but it named the most important conditions an agent needs before calling.

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 for all 6 parameters. It gives real semantics to id and round (tournament id and round), player and swiss_group as scoping options, and username is explicitly discounted. However, the 'reverse' parameter is only swept into 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied; their effectiveness is not implied by the schema,' which does not explain what reverse means or when to use it. This gap prevents a higher score.

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 opens with 'Read tournament matchups by id and round, scoped to a player or swiss_group,' which names a specific verb, resource, and scoping parameters. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like battle_status or tournament_* by focusing on matchups indexed by tournament id and round.

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 explicit, measured usage guidance: scoping to player or swiss_group, the contrast between a captured group returning 21 matchups versus a player returning six, and the caveat that omitting both, using group 0, or username alone returns empty. It clearly says 'username is not a substitute for player.' However, it does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly, so it stops one step short of a 5.

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