top_championships

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is low. The description still adds real behavioral content the annotations lack: a hard cap of 12 results and the deliberate exclusion of esports, both of which affect interpretation of the output.

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?

Two short sentences, the result shape and scope constraints front-loaded, and the follow-up instruction second. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (championships plus match counts), the result cap, and the esports exclusion, plus how to use the returned id. Only the ranking criterion for 'popular' is left unstated.

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 single line_type parameter has 100% schema coverage with an enum and a description of both values, so the schema carries the meaning. The description only gestures at the live/prematch split indirectly by naming the two match-listing siblings; it adds no syntax or default guidance beyond the schema.

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 the resource (popular championships/tournaments) and the payload (match counts, capped at 12, esports excluded). It implicitly separates itself from list_tournaments via 'popular'/'without esports', though that contrast is never made explicit.

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?

Gives concrete downstream routing: take the tournament_id from here and feed it to list_live_matches or list_prematch_matches. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over list_tournaments or top_matches, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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