list_tournaments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one meaningful behavioral detail beyond them: results are restricted to tournaments that actually have matches and each carries match counts. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether an empty list is possible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the filters, and the returned data with zero filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of indicating the return content (match counts) and the filtering behavior. Gaps remain around result ordering/paging and the tournament-vs-championship distinction, but for a simple read-only list tool it is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (esports, sport_id, line_type, country_id) are already documented with defaults, enums, and ID provenance in the schema. The description only alludes to sport/country scoping and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the tournaments') plus scoping conditions (one sport and country, only those with matches) and the payload ('with match counts'). However, it never distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, top_championships, so an agent must infer the difference between tournaments and championships.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (that sport_id/country_id must first be resolved via list_sports/list_countries), and no indication of when top_championships or the match-listing tools are preferable.

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