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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses that one request is made, that unset fields are null, that contacts are intentionally omitted for privacy, and it explains the rating object structure. This is substantial behavioral context beyond what the name or schema imply.

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 dense but well structured. It front-loads the one-request behavior, then covers parameter provenance, output fields, intentional omissions, and the related sibling. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description correctly enumerates all response fields and their null/empty semantics, which is the main missing context. Minor gaps remain around not-found behavior and authentication, but these are secondary for a simple single-request lookup.

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 schema only gives hall_id as a string, while the description fully compensates: hall_id is the numeric ID from the hall URL, same as in get_tournament and the player summary. An agent can determine exactly what value to pass and where the value may already be available from sibling tools.

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 identifies the resource as a hall/club on rttf.ru and lists the returned fields, making the operation a hall-details lookup rather than a player or tournament tool. It does not use an explicit action verb beyond the tool name, and it only partially distinguishes itself from siblings through the final search_tournaments note.

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 gives useful routing context: hall_id can come from get_tournament or a player summary, and tournaments for the hall are explicitly delegated to search_tournaments. It stops short of explicitly saying when to choose get_hall over get_player or get_tournament, but the intended context is clear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals many non-obvious behaviors: ratings are rounded rather than truncated, can be negative and are reset to 1, history points may have null dates, recent tournaments are truncated at ten, restricted sections are omitted by design, and absent category keys indicate absence rather than failure. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 long, but every paragraph earns its place by documenting real behavioral nuances and edge cases. It is structured with clear labels and paragraphs for each response component, and the most important usage caveats are placed prominently. No filler or tautological phrasing is present.

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 there is no output schema stub beyond the input parameters, the description carries the entire burden of documenting the response shape. It comprehensively explains the top-level fields, category structures, rating semantics, stats, tournament fields, and all relevant null/absence behaviors. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret its results correctly.

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 only defines player_id as a string with no explanation. The description compensates fully by specifying that player_id is a number taken from the profile URL, giving a concrete example (rttf.ru/players/28415). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema and leaves no ambiguity about how to obtain and format the parameter.

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 resource (player profile on rttf.ru) and the specific contents returned: category ratings, rating history, summary, and recent tournaments with place and balance. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that name search is unavailable and that list_players or get_tournament should be used to reach a player.

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 gives concrete guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it explains that there is no by-name search, that player_id must be taken from the profile URL, and that list_players or get_tournament are the routes to find a player. It also clarifies that match-level data is intentionally not returned, preventing incorrect use of the tool for that purpose.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explains edge cases: unplayed tournaments have empty standings and null counters, singles vs. doubles counters differ, rating fields refer to the event rather than today, average_rating uses fractional ratings and won't match integer averages, and pairs lack rating deltas.

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 long but every paragraph earns its place by documenting a distinct aspect: parameter, limitations, metadata, counters, registration, singles, doubles, and rating semantics. It is clearly structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 thoroughly documents all return fields, their formats, and many conditional behaviors. It covers singles vs. doubles differences, unplayed tournament behavior, rating semantics, and calculation quirks, leaving no essential information missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema only indicates tournament_id is a string, but the description adds critical meaning: it is the numeric part of the tournament URL (e.g., rttf.ru/tournaments/243702). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and tells the agent exactly how to obtain the parameter.

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 opens with 'Турнир rttf.ru: метаданные и итоговая таблица. Один запрос.', which clearly states the tool returns tournament metadata and final standings. It is specific to the tournament resource and implicitly distinct from sibling tools focused on players, halls, and search.

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 gives useful context for when to use the tool: it requires a tournament_id from the tournament URL and returns metadata plus standings. It also provides an exclusion by stating that matches are never included and that game lists live in a separate closed /games endpoint, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses one-request window semantics, descending order, window overlap with fractional ties, the need to deduplicate by player_id, and the three distinct cases where next_max_rating becomes null. It also explains field meanings such as rank being overall even with city filters and is_team denoting corporate teams.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: purpose and uniqueness first, then parameter semantics, then pagination edge cases, then response field details. It is densely informative without filler or redundant restatements.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a non-trivial pagination flow, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all needed parameter formats, windowing behavior, termination conditions, deduplication, and response field semantics, leaving little for an agent to guess.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain both parameters, and it does. It defines city as either a region code or numeric city code with examples and tells where to find codes. It explains max_rating as the upper window bound, the initial-call omission, and the next_max_rating handoff, adding crucial semantics absent from the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it pages through the rttf.ru player rating in 100-row windows. It also distinguishes itself by stating it is the only permitted way to reach a player without name search, which separates it clearly from sibling tools like search_tournaments and get_player.

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 gives clear operational context: use this tool when you need players without using name search, and it explains the pagination flow. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use them, but the 'only permitted way' statement makes the intended usage unambiguous.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the 100-row limit, no pagination, truncation flags, null counters, filter echo behavior, and per-field semantics like live, registration_open, and average_rating. This goes well beyond basic mutation/read labels.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured filter and output details. It is longer than average, but every sentence carries operational value, so the length is justified.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it explains the response row fields, null semantics, truncation behavior, list ordering, coverage depths, and filter echo. An agent has nearly everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description provides rich semantics for all three parameters: city references list_players, hall_id gives a concrete URL example, and tournament_type enumerates all site codes with meanings. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 identifies the tool as searching rttf.ru tournaments by filters and emphasizes 'one request' returning both upcoming and past tournaments. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling get_tournament, but the 'by filters' and 'one request' phrasing makes the batch-search intent clear.

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 explains what filters are available and notes that date/name filters are unavailable due to robots.txt, giving useful constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_tournament or list_players, nor does it describe exclusion criteria for alternatives.

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