tournament_upcoming

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

The description goes beyond the schema by disclosing that it makes one logical GET request and does not auto-fetch continuation pages, which is crucial for pagination-aware agents. It also details that array responses are limited to 100 rows and 256 KiB with truncation reported, and oversized records are refused without partial fields – behaviors not apparent from annotations or schema. Since no annotations are provided, this description carries heavy responsibility and fulfills it well.

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 concise and well-structured, with key information front-loaded: the primary purpose in the first sentence, followed by limiting behaviors. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is slightly long but manages to cover all necessary operational details without fluff.

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?

The description is highly complete for a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema. It covers the purpose, request characteristics, response limits, error handling, and parameter effect uncertainty. The explicit handling of pagination and truncation is particularly important for an agent to avoid incomplete reads. Given the low complexity and absence of output schema, this description provides all essential information for correct 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the schema provides minimal meaning for the 'username' parameter. The description explicitly states that the username is optional and its effect is not established, which adds some semantic context beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the expected format or possible values, leaving much to inference, which is acceptable given the parameter's simplicity.

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 clearly identifies the tool as reading upcoming tournament summaries, distinguishing it from related siblings like tournament_in_progress and tournament_completed based on the 'upcoming' qualifier. It does not explicitly compare with siblings, but the purpose is specific enough to differentiate.

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 notes that the username is optional and its effect is unestablished, but it fails to provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tournament_mine or tournament_find. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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