Tournament role instructions

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description is consistent with that. Beyond annotations it adds only the sequencing advice and the role enumeration; it says nothing about the shape or size of the returned instructions and rubric.

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 with the return value first and the call-first directive last. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs trimming.

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?

A one-parameter read-only tool with annotations needs little more than this, and "instructions and rubric" gives a usable picture of the return value in the absence of an output schema. The only gap is that the distinct meaning of each role value is left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of the single required parameter. It lists the six enum values, which the schema already defines, and adds the framing that these are roles in the variant tournament; it does not explain what distinguishes, say, critic from judge.

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: it returns instructions and a rubric for one role, and enumerates the roles so the agent knows the domain. It does not differentiate from any sibling, but the supplied siblings are unrelated character_* tools, so the omission is minor.

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?

"Reviewers should call this first" gives explicit sequencing guidance about when to invoke it. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives, but for a simple lookup tool the context is clear enough.

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