search_tournaments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the site-specific DD.MM.YYYY date format (and why it deviates from ISO), the maximum of 20 results with no pagination, and the truncated=true flag when the cap is hit. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 organized into three short purposeful segments: purpose, usage rule, and behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds valuable information with no filler, and the most important constraint (date format) is prominently placed.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers input requirements, a critical format quirk, result limits, and truncation signaling. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret the key edge case of an empty result set.

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 compensate for missing parameter documentation. It explicitly explains the date format and the at-least-one-argument constraint. The 'name' parameter is only described as 'by name,' which is adequate for a simple string search but not deeper semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('searches'), a resource ('tournaments'), and the search criteria (name and date). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_tournament (single tournament retrieval) and search_players (players), even without naming them.

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?

It gives a clear operational rule: at least one argument is required. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives, but the search-by-name/date context makes the intended use obvious and there is no misleading guidance.

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