tournament_find_brawl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool makes one logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, limits the players list to 100 rows/256 KiB, reports truncation in text and metadata, and refuses oversized records without partial fields. Some phrasing is vague, but the behavioral coverage is strong.

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 front-loaded with its primary purpose, which is good. Yet it includes meta commentary ('Required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements') and confusing phrasing ('Players are locally bounded while guilds and brawl rules remain intact'), and contains a missing period. It could be tightened without losing value.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation support, so the description must provide enough context to call the tool correctly. It covers required inputs, pagination behavior, truncation reporting, and oversized-record handling, but it never explains the shape of returned brawl details beyond player-list limits, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clarifies that id is a tournament id, guild_id is required, and optional filters are forwarded as supplied with no implied effectiveness. However, it does not explicitly define the username parameter or provide format/value examples, leaving part of the semantic burden unmet.

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 'Read brawl details for an explicit tournament id and guild_id,' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and required parameters. It distinguishes this exact-lookup from search-style siblings like tournament_find and tournament_upcoming, though it stops short of explicitly naming an alternative.

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 implies when to use the tool (with explicit tournament id and guild_id) and warns that omitting guild_id returns an error. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection among the large sibling set.

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