Explore tournament options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful cost context beyond that: the call is free and makes no paid model calls, which is the key behavioral fact for a catalog tool in a paid-model product. It stops short of describing size or pagination of the catalog.

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 'Free discovery' framing and the no-paid-calls guarantee, then the inventory. The long comma list is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the catalog contains.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and annotations cover the safety semantics. For a zero-required-parameter discovery tool, the description is complete enough to call correctly; only an explicit pointer to the next-step sibling is missing.

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 optional 'bench' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'omit for all benches' behavior. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming detail for the parameter, so the baseline 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 (lists) plus a concrete inventory of resources: benches, scenarios, model tiers with prices, judge personas, provider setup, defaults, and limits. It also clarifies the tool fetches the catalog without paid calls. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, but the discovery-vs-execution split against tournament_plan_run/tournament_evaluate is inferable.

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?

'Free discovery' implies this is the entry point for exploration before committing to a paid run, and 'Fetches the model catalog but makes no paid model calls' reinforces the safe/browse context. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives are given, so the agent must infer that this precedes tournament_plan_run.

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