get_tournament_round_group

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'get details,' which is implicit for a read operation but adds no information about authentication, rate limits, or response structure. There is no contradiction, but the description is essentially a restatement of the tool's name.

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, direct sentence with no redundant wording. It communicates the tool's purpose efficiently.

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 3-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context such as what details are returned and any usage guidance. The lack of output schema means the description should elaborate on the response, but it does not, leaving a gap.

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 input schema fully describes all three parameters (tournamentId, round, group) with individual descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but no more.

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 retrieves details for a group within a tournament round, using the verb 'get' and identifying the resource. It is more specific than the sibling get_tournament_round, which likely operates at the round level. However, 'details' is broad and doesn't enumerate what is returned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_tournament_round or get_tournament. The description simply states what the tool does without mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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