tournament_upcoming

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: single logical GET request, no continuation page auto-fetching, array row/size limits, truncation reporting, oversized-record refusal, and honest uncertainty about the username parameter's effect. This is unusually transparent about runtime behavior.

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 front-loads the purpose and is organized into short sentences, but includes filler like 'Required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements' and the confusing 'Other declared filters' phrase, which do not clearly earn their place for a one-parameter tool.

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 simple optional-parameter GET endpoint, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, pagination, limits, and truncation. It is less complete on return-value shape, but no output schema exists and the phrase 'tournament summaries' plus row-count/truncation metadata is reasonably sufficient for invocation.

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% and the only parameter, username, gets only 'Optional username is forwarded; its effect is not established.' The description does not explain what the username represents, what value to pass, or how it affects results, so an agent cannot determine correct usage beyond knowing it is optional.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Read upcoming tournament summaries.' This clearly separates it from tournament_in_progress/tournament_completed siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from tournament_upcoming_official.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose ('read upcoming tournament summaries'), and the description gives useful invocation caveats like optional username forwarding and no auto-fetching of continuation pages. However, it never states when to choose this tool over sibling tournament endpoints or when not to use it.

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