faceit_searchTournaments

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 discloses the HTTP method (GET) and lists parameters with constraints, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, potential errors, or the structure of the returned list beyond 'List of tournament'. Pagination is implied but not explained.

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 well-structured with a usage note, endpoint, parameter list, and return type. It is clear and to the point, though the parameter list repeats information that could be inferred from the schema (but the schema lacks descriptions). No unnecessary 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete for purpose and parameters. However, it lacks information on the structure of the returned tournaments (fields, pagination details) and error handling. This could hinder an agent's ability to process results or handle failures.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides type, default, and constraints for each parameter (e.g., min/max for offset/limit, enum for type). However, descriptions for 'game' and 'region' are vague ('A game on FACEIT', 'A region of the game'). Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 searches for tournaments by name, which is a specific action on a specific resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'getTournament' by noting to switch to getTournament once the ID is known.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use when you only have a (possibly partial) tournament name. Switch to getTournament once you have the tournament_id.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and when to use an alternative.

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