tournament_in_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and exceeds it: it states this is one logical GET, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, applies 100-row/256 KiB array limits, reports truncation in text and metadata, and refuses oversized records without partial fields. It also discloses that filters are forwarded without implying their effectiveness. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 the purpose and uses dense, mostly single-purpose sentences. Some boilerplate phrases like 'Required inputs reflect tool policy...' and 'Other declared filters are forwarded...' add little when the schema has no required inputs and only one optional filter, and there is a missing period between 'logical GET request' and 'Does not'. Still, nearly every clause earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers request semantics, filtering caveats, pagination, truncation, and oversized-record refusal. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and interpret non-standard responses.

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 only parameter, username, is documented in the schema only by name and type, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds useful facts: the parameter is optional and forwarded only when supplied, and filters are passed through without implied effectiveness. However, it does not explain how username affects the returned summaries, leaving the agent to infer its semantic impact.

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 states a clear verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('in-progress tournament summaries'), and a status filter that distinguishes it from siblings like tournament_upcoming, tournament_completed, and tournament_cancelled. It expands meaningfully beyond the bare tool name.

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 'in-progress' gives a clear contextual trigger, and the optional username sentence indicates one conditional use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer a sibling such as tournament_completed, tournament_cancelled, or tournament_upcoming.

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