faceit_getTeamTournaments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the endpoint and parameters but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. It is insufficient for a tool with no 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 front-loaded with the purpose and then provides the endpoint and parameter details. It is fairly concise, though the endpoint line is somewhat redundant with the parameter explanations. Overall efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, endpoint, parameters, and return type. However, it lacks information on pagination behavior, error scenarios, or ordering, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by listing each parameter with its location, type, required status, and constraints (e.g., min/max values). This provides helpful context beyond the schema alone.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'tournaments of a team', and specifies it lists tournaments a team has participated in. This differentiates it from sibling tools like faceit_getTeamStats or faceit_getTeam.

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 explains that the tool is used to list tournaments a team has participated in, but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternatives. It is adequate for a straightforward list tool.

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