Get a saved tournament run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: 'Free local read (no API calls, no network),' which tells the agent there is no cost or latency risk in calling it repeatedly.

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 cost/locality fact before the functional description, then the ID-discovery hint. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 local read with an output schema already defining the return shape, nothing an agent needs is missing: what it does, that it is free/local, and how to source the required ID. Listing the returned fields is mildly redundant with the output schema but reinforces scope rather than crowding it.

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 100% and the single runId parameter is already documented with an example format ('run-2026-07-20-235500') and the saved-run-folder constraint. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no syntax or lookup detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads the full detail of one saved tournament run by ID, and enumerates what that detail includes (plugin, models, judges, scenarios, scores, failures). It distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to tournament_leaderboard and the tournament://runs resource as ID-discovery tools rather than rivals.

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?

Gives clear context for use: retrieve one run's full detail by ID, and directs the agent to tournament_leaderboard or the tournament://runs resource to obtain that ID. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule (e.g., use the leaderboard when you only need aggregate ranking), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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