lounge_tournament

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It implies a read-only, informational operation by describing standings and time remaining, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or require specific permissions. The 'FREE' note adds a minor cost-related behavior, but the description lacks explicit behavioral clarity compared to a tool with 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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the attention-grabbing 'FREE' and then immediately states the tool's purpose. It contains zero fluff or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete for selection and invocation. It tells the agent exactly what information will be returned (standings, time remaining, qualifiers). However, it does not explicitly mention that it is a snapshot of current state or differentiate from the permanent honor roll, which might be useful but is not critical for a 0-parameter tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and no ambiguity exists in invocation.

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 states the tool provides today's 24-hour tournament standings, time remaining, and qualifying candidates for the permanent honor roll. It identifies the resource (tournament) and its content, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like lounge_leaderboard or lounge_play.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'FREE' but does not explain under what circumstances to prefer this over lounge_leaderboard or other tournament-related tools. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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