Knockout bracket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds context: 'Falls back to structure-only when live data is unavailable' and explains how group slots and winner slots are populated, providing behavioral details beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main purpose, then details on optional filtering and fallback. Every sentence adds value.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description covers all necessary aspects: scope, optional filtering, fallback behavior, and parameter hints. No missing context 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining the stage enum values (R32 through F) and the overall behavior (live scores overlaid, structure-only fallback), complementing the schema well.

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 states 'Knockout bracket from the Round of 32 through the final, with live scores overlaid', clearly specifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like get_standings or get_live by focusing on the bracket view.

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?

It explains when to pass an optional stage to filter and notes the fallback behavior when live data is unavailable. Implicitly guides usage for bracket retrieval, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives.

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