get_tournament

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata, final table, and other series tournaments, and explicitly states what it does NOT return (individual matches). This is useful behavioral context, though it doesn't cover response format or potential errors.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, then adds a clarifying note about what is not included. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return values and explicitly notes the limitation about matches. It could mention the format of tournament_id or error cases, but the core information an agent needs is present.

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 compensate. It doesn't explain the tournament_id parameter format or provide examples, but the parameter name is self-explanatory and the description clarifies what the tool returns for that ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the single obvious 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 tool returns a tournament with metadata, final standings, and other tournaments in the series. It also explicitly distinguishes it from match-level data, which helps an agent understand exactly what this tool provides.

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 that the page only contains the final table and that individual matches are not included, directing users to get_player for match details. It doesn't explicitly mention when to use search_tournaments instead, but it gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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