get_round_by_id

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose behaviors such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or how missing IDs are handled. The presence of pagination parameters (page, per_page) suggests the response might be a list, contradicting 'single round'—this ambiguity is unaddressed.

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 extremely brief (one sentence), but this brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness. It is too terse, omitting critical information about parameters and usage, making it less helpful than it could be.

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 complexity (7 parameters, including pagination and optional includes) and the absence of an output schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what the response contains, how optional parameters affect the result, or any constraints (e.g., rate limits). This is inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the 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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. However, the tool description adds nothing beyond 'by ID'. The baseline is 3 since the schema already handles parameter explanations; the description does not provide extra context for non-obvious parameters like 'include', 'filters', or 'locale'.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'a single round by ID', making the core purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_rounds_by_season_id or search_rounds_by_name.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for fetching rounds, the description should clarify scenarios (e.g., 'Use this when you know the round ID; for fetching all rounds in a season, use get_rounds_by_season_id').

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