tournament_prizes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses read-only nature, no prize claim, single GET request, no auto-fetch of continuation pages, array limits (100 rows, 256 KiB), truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 with seven sentences, some redundant (e.g., 'Makes one logical GET request' and 'Does not auto-fetch continuation pages' both concern request behavior). It is front-loaded with the main purpose, but could be tightened to reduce verbosity.

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 no-parameter read tool, the description covers request behavior, limits, truncation, and error handling, which is sufficient. It lacks return format details, but since there is no output schema, this is an acceptable gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%. The description mentions 'required inputs' and 'declared filters' but none exist, so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Read') and resource ('upstream awarded and upcoming tournament prize aggregate figures'), and clarifies it does not recompute them. It distinguishes itself from sibling tournament tools by focusing on prize aggregates and explicitly noting it does not claim prizes, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides some usage context: it is a read operation, does not claim prizes, and notes about pagination and filter forwarding. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for when to use this over others, leaving guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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