tournament_battles

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it makes one logical GET request and does not auto-fetch continuation pages, plus array limits and truncation behavior, and that omitted filters may return empty. This is good but doesn't cover all edge cases like what happens with invalid ids.

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?

It is dense but well-structured, with important scoping info first, then behavioral notes. Each sentence adds new information, though it's a bit long, it remains concise for the complexity.

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 6 params, 2 required, and no output schema, the description covers the key usage constraints and response behaviors, but could explain what a 'nested battle reference' is and how results are formatted. However, it touches on most essentials.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that player and swiss_group are scoping filters, and username is not a substitute for player. However, it doesn't explain reverse or other filters, leaving some params undocumented.

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 states it reads tournament matchups by id and round, with optional scoping to player or swiss_group, which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from general battle tools. However, it doesn't name a specific sibling to differentiate from, though the scope is clear.

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?

It provides clear context on required inputs (round, id) and notes that username alone is insufficient, suggesting it should be used with player. It implies when to use it (to get matchups) but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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