get_hall

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.