aiarena_tournament_suggestions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the operation is free, that results are matched to the caller's skill bracket, and enumerates the returned metadata (entry fee, players joined, seats left, field skill bracket, queue size, fit rationale). It never explicitly states read-only semantics, auth needs, or pagination limits, which is the remaining gap.

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 value proposition and the metadata payload, then the filter options. The '[FREE]' prefix and '(inv #4342)' identifier are a bit of tag noise but do convey pricing and invocation context, so little is truly wasted.

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 two-param, no-output-schema discovery tool, the description substitutes well for a missing output schema by enumerating the returned fields. The main shortfall is the lack of any statement on result volume, ordering, or how 'why each pot fits you' is derived.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must supply parameter meaning, and it does: it names the two filters and gives their accepted values (game: hexduel|battleship; bracket: beginner|intermediate|advanced). Enum membership is conveyed in prose rather than schema, and the empty/default behavior (return all) is only implied, not stated.

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 states a specific resource (open tournament pots / Tournament Quick Join suggestions) and the matching logic (skill bracket), plus the exact metadata each suggestion carries. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names the overlapping siblings (aiarena_tournament_list, aiarena_tournament_quick_join, aiarena_matchmaking_recommend), so an agent must infer the distinction from the word 'suggestions'.

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?

Usage is implied: browse 'open tournament pots matched to your skill bracket' before joining. The filter dimensions (game, bracket) hint at the discovery workflow that precedes aiarena_tournament_quick_join, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' statement and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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