spicerack_recent_tournaments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds value by stating the output includes dates, player counts, and IDs. No contradictions. It could mention pagination or default limits, but schema covers defaults.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and output, the second provides immediate usage guidance. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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 no output schema, the description mentions return fields (dates, player counts, IDs) but does not specify exact structure or list format. It successfully links to sibling tool and covers required parameter. Could be slightly more explicit about return format, but sufficient for a list tool with good schema coverage.

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 clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema; it only mentions 'format' implicitly. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already adequately documents parameters.

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's purpose: 'List recent tournaments for a format with dates, player counts, and IDs.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('recent tournaments'), effectively differentiating it from siblings like spicerack_tournament_results by explicitly referencing the workflow to use the returned IDs.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use the tournament ID from the results with tournament_results to see full standings and decklists.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (to get IDs) and directs toward a sibling for further detail. While it does not list explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, the context is clear and actionable.

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