Get event entrants

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description aligns by describing a read-only listing. It adds behavioral details about pagination and fetchAll support, and identifies the output fields. However, it does not disclose the fetchAll safety cap or other operational limits, leaving partial transparency despite the annotation coverage.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose and output, the second the pagination/fetchAll functionality. All information is front-loaded with zero redundant words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description covers the core listing behavior and output, but omits the critical requirement to provide exactly one locator (url, slug, or eventId) and does not mention the fetchAll safety cap. Given the tool has 7 optional parameters and no required ones, this gap could lead to incorrect calls. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter insight—it mentions 'Supports pagination or fetchAll' and the output fields, but does not clarify the locator requirement (exactly one of url/slug/eventId), which is only noted in the eventId description. No significant extra semantics beyond the 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'an event's entrants', and specifies the returned fields (seed, players, disqualification flag). It is specific enough to be distinguished from siblings like get_tournament_entrants by the 'event' scope, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_tournament_entrants or get_event_standings. The mention of pagination/fetchAll offers usage options but does not address alternative selection, so the agent gets no help in choosing between related tools.

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