tournament_completed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: one logical GET, no paging controls, no auto-fetch of continuation pages, array results capped at 100 rows/256 KiB with truncation reported, and oversized records refused without partial fields. It even documents probe results (limit=2/offset=2 returned 200 unchanged), which the schema alone could never convey.

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 opening sentence is strong, and behaviors are grouped in a sensible order. But the text is wordy and somewhat repetitive, e.g., the 200-row probe detail could be compressed to 'no paging; the result is a fixed bounded set.' There is also a missing period after 'request.'

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 is thorough about boundaries: no paging, no auto-fetch, truncation, and refusal of oversized records. However, with no output schema, it leaves return-shape information vague, and it does not clarify how username affects results or what a completed tournament summary contains. An agent can call it cautiously but cannot fully predict the response.

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 schema has one parameter, username, with 0% description coverage, and the description never explains what username means, whether it is optional, or how it filters completed summaries. Phrases like 'Required inputs reflect tool policy' and 'effectiveness is not implied by the schema' are caveats rather than semantic guidance, and may confuse an agent deciding whether to send username.

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?

Opens with 'Read completed tournament summaries.' — a specific verb, resource, and completion state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tournament_upcoming, tournament_in_progress, and tournament_cancelled without needing their schemas.

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 gives clear scope (completed tournaments) and implies that the bounded 200-row result is not a complete archive, so an agent knows not to use it for exhaustive history. However, it never names alternatives or gives explicit when-to/not-to-use conditions, leaving some routing burden on the agent.

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