tournament_mine

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so exceptionally: it states one logical GET, no auto-fetch of continuation pages, local array limits (100 rows/256 KiB), truncation reporting, refusal of oversized records, and forwards filters without guaranteeing effectiveness. The empirical note that a known entrant returned an empty array is especially useful in preventing misinterpretation.

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 dense with high-value caveats; no sentence is pure filler. The 'other declared filters' sentence is somewhat confusing given the one-field schema and the anecdotal empty-array example could be trimmed, so it is appropriately thorough rather than maximally concise.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, it covers request behavior, limits, truncation, and interpretation pitfalls well. It still leaves the row shape/fields undefined and offers no fallback endpoint for full participation history, which an agent would need in a real task.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does by labeling the username as 'explicit' and explaining that required inputs reflect tool policy plus upstream requirements. It does not detail formatting, case, or allowed values, but with a single self-descriptive parameter that is a minor gap.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('upstream mine listing') scoped to an explicit username, so an agent can tell this is a targeted read tool. The 'Do not present...' caveat adds differentiation from general participation-history endpoints, but the description never defines what a 'mine listing' contains, so it falls short of full clarity.

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?

It clearly states the tool is for reading the upstream mine listing for a username and warns against treating it as complete participation history, which gives implied usage context. It never names a sibling alternative or states conditions for choosing another endpoint, so an agent has no explicit routing guidance.

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