tournament_cancelled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is unusually specific. It discloses no working pagination, one logical GET request, no auto-fetching of continuation pages, local array limits (100 rows/256 KiB), truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records without partial fields.

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 dense and mostly actionable, with the purpose sentence front-loaded and limitations listed compactly. It loses a point for the missing period between 'Makes one logical GET request' and 'Does not auto-fetch continuation pages' and for the vague 'Required inputs reflect tool policy' sentence.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains pagination behavior, truncation, refusal policy, and upstream filter forwarding. It does not describe the shape of returned summaries or how username filters results, but 'summaries' and the schema cover the 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?

The only parameter, username, is self-explanatory, but schema coverage is 0% and the description does not define its role, format, or optionality beyond saying inputs 'reflect tool policy' and that filters are forwarded as supplied. It partially compensates for the missing schema documentation but leaves the main parameter's semantics implicit.

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.' The 'cancelled' qualifier distinguishes this tool from sibling tournament endpoints like tournament_upcoming, tournament_in_progress, and tournament_completed, though it does not name or explicitly contrast those siblings.

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 intended usage context is clear: use this tool when you need cancelled tournament summaries. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the qualifier 'cancelled' plus the sibling list makes the appropriate selection unambiguous.

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