search_tournaments

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.