Tournament catalogue

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, lowering the bar. The description adds valuable context: return fields (surface, indoor, host city/country, category) and the caveat 'where curated', indicating data may be sparse. It also notes the id space is stable, which is useful for caching and mapping.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action. Each phrase earns its place: 'stable id space', 'where curated', and the field list. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

With an output schema present and only three optional params, the description covers purpose, return fields, and id-mapping context. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional elaboration.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage: tour enum, limit with default/max, and query with example. The description adds no param-specific meaning beyond that, so baseline 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 opens with 'Search the tournament catalogue', a specific verb+resource pairing. It further distinguishes from sibling tools by framing the catalogue as 'the stable id space that match objects carry as tournament_id', clarifying its role relative to get_tournament and search_archive_matches.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to resolve tournament_id values or search tournaments by name/field. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the stable-id-space framing and field listing give enough context for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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