tournament_completed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full confidentiality burden — and it carries it exceptionally well. It discloses that the underlying list is bounded at 200 rows, that an undocumented limit=2/offset=2 probe returned the same 200 rows so paging is not respected, that only one logical GET is made, that filters are forwarded unenforced, and that arrays are hard-limited to 100 rows / 256 KiB with truncation reported. It also states oversized records are refused wholesale rather than partially returned. This is model transparency an agent can act on.

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 front-loads its purpose and then fills in testable behavioral constraints efficiently. However, the text is dense and somewhat redundant around paging — 'no paging controls are exposed' and 'does not auto-fetch continuation pages' overlap — and the 'required inputs reflect measured upstream requirements' sentence is vague enough to invite a reread.

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 a single optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is unusually complete on safety and boundary behavior: truncation, refusal handling, and one-request semantics are all covered. It stops just short of a 5 because it never clarifies what 'completed tournament summaries' contains as a return shape, what the username input does, or what a reasonable caller should send.

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 only parameter, username, is never explained — the description does not say what it filters, whether it is the tournament list owner, or what an agent should pass. The generic note that declared filters are 'forwarded as supplied' is useful but it makes no reference to username's intended semantics, and the phrase about 'required inputs' is confused given the schema has zero required properties.

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 first sentence, 'Read completed tournament summaries,' states a clear verb and resource and cleanly differentiates from sibling tools like tournament_upcoming, tournament_in_progress, and tournament_cancelled. The rest of the description strengthens the boundary by noting the result is not a complete archive.

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 never tells an agent when to choose this tool over siblings such as tournament_find, tournament_battles, or tournament_prizes. It offers no exclusions, no prerequisite conditions, and no hints about when the 'completed' vs ho_used 'in_progress' or 'upcoming' variants apply — the only usage signal is implicit in the name and first sentence.

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