Tournament detail

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond that by noting the ID is stable and carried on match objects, and that some fields (host city/country and category) are provided only 'where curated', indicating possible data incompleteness. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that explains the purpose, the input identifier, and the output fields without any wasted words. It is well-structured and immediately scannable.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description conveys the core purpose, the required identifier, and the expected data content. It is complete enough for an agent to select and 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 already fully documents the single parameter (tournament_id) with a clear description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds little beyond repeating that the ID is carried on match objects, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieving a single tournament by its stable ID and distinguishes it from siblings like search_tournaments. It specifies the resource (tournament) and the key identifier (tournament_id), along with the kind of data returned (name, tour, surface, indoor, etc.).

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 implies the appropriate context: use this tool when you already have a stable tournament_id, such as one carried on match objects. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and the parameter schema reinforces the source of the ID.

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