tournament_upcoming_official

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses that the tool makes one logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, limits array responses to 100 rows/256 KiB, reports truncation, and refuses oversized records without partial fields. The 'Read' wording also implies non-mutating 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 is front-loaded with the core purpose and then packs in important behavioral caveats without excessive filler. The sentence about required inputs is somewhat vague, but overall each sentence contributes meaningful information and the structure is readable.

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?

Given a minimal input schema cam and no output schema, the description covers a surprising amount: request behavior, pagination, limits, truncation, and a sibling-equivalence warning. The main gap is the unexplained `username` parameter, which prevents the definition from being fully self-sufficient.

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 schema has one optional `username` parameter and 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explain what `username` means or how it affects results. The statement that 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied; their effectiveness is not implied by the schema' adds generic context but fails to define the actual parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read the official upcoming tournament route.' It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'tournament_upcoming' by noting the identical 58-row capture and warning against inferring permanent equivalence. Some ambiguity remains because 'route' is not fully defined and the exact data contents are not described.

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 provides useful context by referencing 'upcoming' and cautioning against permanent equivalence or treating this as a distinct complete dataset. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over tournament_upcoming or when not to use it. The filter-effectiveness caveat is relevant but does not give clear selection guidance.

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