tournament_cancelled

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that the capture has 200 rows, that pagination is not established, that it makes only one logical GET request, that array responses are locally limited to 100 rows and 256 KiB, that truncation is reported, and that oversized records are refused without partial fields. This is unusually explicit and useful.

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 most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the constraints are packed into compact sentences. The sentence about 'required inputs reflect tool policy' is vague boilerplate, but nearly every other sentence earns its place by conveying operational limits. It is appropriately sized for a tool with significant caveats.

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 output limits, pagination behavior, and refusal behavior, which is strong contextual coverage for a simple read tool. However, it does not explain how the optional username parameter affects results or what a cancelled tournament summary actually contains, and there is no output schema to compensate. These gaps prevent it from being fully 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%, and the description does not explain the only declared property, username, at all. The generic statements about 'required inputs' and 'other declared filters' are confusing because the schema has no required parameters and only one property, and it contradicts the presence of additional filters. The description adds no useful parameter semantics 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read cancelled tournament summaries.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like tournament_upcoming, tournament_completed, and tournament_mine by indicating it targets cancelled tournaments. There is no ambiguity about what the tool operates on.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when cancelled tournament summaries are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the resource-specific phrasing makes the intended context reasonably clear. It also sets boundary expectations by noting there is no working pagination and that only one GET request is made.

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