tournament_find_brawl

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses row and byte limits, truncation reporting, refusal of oversized records, single GET request behavior, no auto-fetching of continuation pages, and pass-through filters with no implied effectiveness.

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 purpose and every subsequent sentence adds a non-redundant behavioral or usage constraint. It is dense but not bloated, and all caveats are relevant to invoking the tool correctly.

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 read operation with three parameters and no output schema, it covers inputs, required fields, truncation, error behavior, and fetch strategy. The main omission is the return structure and whether/how continuation pages can be requested, which matters because the tool explicitly does not auto-fetch them.

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 clearly identifies id as the tournament id and guild_id as a required guild identifier, but username is only indirectly described as a 'declared filter' with no explanation of what it filters or how it behaves.

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 brawl details for an explicit tournament id and guild_id' names a specific verb, a distinct resource (brawl details), and the required scoping fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tournament tools by emphasizing the guild_id-scoped brawl read.

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 clearly conveys the intended use case: reading brawl details when both a tournament id and guild_id are known. It adds practical caveats such as the guild_id omission error and the single-request/no-page-fetch behavior, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions.

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