tournament_find

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses that no credentials are accepted, that exactly one logical GET occurs, that continuation pages are not fetched, that local limits (100 rows/256 KiB) apply with truncation reported, and that oversized records are refused. This makes call consequences predictable.

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 but each sentence contributes: purpose, local bounds, player_limit caveat, auth, request behavior, filter caveat, truncation, and oversized handling. It could be restructured into bullets but is not bloated relative to the behavioral nuance it conveys.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers request count, pagination, auth, filter caveats, and response truncation/refusal behavior, and it names retained fields (rounds, num_players, players). It stops short of fully specifying the response shape, but an agent can select and invoke the tool correctly based on this text.

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 offers no property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does for key parameters: id is the explicit lookup key, player_limit is explicitly called out as ineffective (tested with 2 still returned all 19 players), and other filters are noted as pass-through with no implied effectiveness. Semantics of username, last_round, and swiss_group are left to inference, but their names are self-explanatory in a tournament context.

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?

First sentence states a specific action ('Read tournament details by explicit id') with a clear resource and lookup method, differentiating it from status-list siblings like tournament_upcoming and tournament_completed. The 'explicit id' qualifier signals a direct lookup, not a search.

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 phrase 'by explicit id' gives a clear condition for using the tool. It also advises that filters are forwarded without effectiveness guarantees and that continuation pages are not auto-fetched, helping an agent restrict use to single-record detail reads. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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