tournament_find

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that no credentials are accepted, that it makes one logical GET request without auto-fetching continuation pages, that player_limit is not an effective upstream bound, that other filters are forwarded without guaranteed effectiveness, and that local truncation limits and refusal behavior apply.

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 purposeful, front-loading the core purpose before behavioral caveats. Each sentence contributes unique information, such as pagination behavior, truncation thresholds, and filter caveats. Minor structural issues like the run-on 'Makes one logical GET request Does not auto-fetch continuation pages' and slightly cryptic policy wording keep it from a perfect score.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main invocation risks: auth requirements, pagination, parameter effectiveness, local limits, truncation signaling, and oversized-record handling. It does not describe the full return structure or give per-parameter explanations for all optional filters, but the delivered context is sufficient for safe use in most cases.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaningful value by identifying id as the required lookup key and by explicitly calling out player_limit as ineffective based on a measured test. It also clarifies that other declared filters are forwarded as supplied. However, it does not explain username, last_round, or swiss_group beyond their schema names, leaving their exact meaning and format to inference.

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 opening sentence 'Read tournament details by explicit id' names the exact verb, resource, and lookup key. This differentiates the tool from list/status siblings like tournament_upcoming and tournament_completed, and the 'explicit id' wording separates it from tournament_find_brawl-style variants.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer it is for retrieving tournament details when an id is already known. However, the description gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternative endpoints, and does not mention siblings such as tournament_find_brawl or tournament_in_progress that might be relevant in related contexts.

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