Get event sets

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

With readOnlyHint=true already provided, the description adds valuable context about the output format (normalized fields, score -1 for DQ) and the fact that it filters. It does not contradict the annotation and clarifies what data is returned, which helps the agent set expectations. No side effects or rate limits are mentioned, but the read-only nature is covered by annotations, so the description adds meaningful detail beyond the bare hint.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then packs in the output fields and filters. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a thorough overview of the return format and filter options, which is crucial for an agent to know what to expect. It does not explicitly describe pagination behavior (e.g., fetchAll safety cap), but the input schema covers that per-parameter. Given the complexity, the description is quite complete, leaving only minor gaps like rate limits or error cases that are not typically in tool descriptions.

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%, so all 13 parameters already have detailed descriptions. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning—it mentions filtering by state, phaseIds, round, and entrants, but the schema already explains these (e.g., entry for phaseIds states 'get_event lists phases'). The description does not clarify parameter formats or interactions beyond what the schema provides, so it lands at the baseline 3.

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 begins with 'List an event's sets (matches)' which is a specific verb, resource, and scope. It enumerates the normalized fields (round, state, entrants, scores, winner, phase, VOD URL) and lists filters, making it unmistakable what this tool does and how it differs from siblings like get_player_sets or get_stream_queue.

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 clearly implies this is for listing sets for a specific event, and it references get_event for phaseIds, indicating a relationship. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_player_sets or other sibling tools, nor does it exclude any conditions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it's a solid 4.

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