Get tournament

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds useful context about the return content (schedule, venue, events, streams) but does not disclose any edge cases, rate limits, or behavioral quirks beyond that. With annotations covering the read-only nature, a 3 is appropriate as the description provides some but not rich behavioral detail.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the detailed contents, then immediately covers the identification methods. There is zero filler, and every phrase contributes to the agent's understanding. Efficient 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 simple read tool with a clear result description and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns and how to identify the tournament. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state that exactly one locator must be provided, but that constraint is present in the schema. Given no output schema and straightforward usage, this is nearly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters have descriptive text, including the note that exactly one locator should be provided. The description reinforces the locator types (numeric id, slug, URL) but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema already documents parameters well.

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 it gets one tournament's details and enumerates the specific content: schedule, venue/location, registration, events with videogame and entrant counts, and streams. It names three locator types (numeric id, slug, URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tournament_events (events only) and get_tournament_entrants (entrants only), so an agent can select it without opening other schemas.

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 implies this is the general-purpose tool for full tournament details, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_tournament_events. There are no exclusions or comparisons to siblings. The absence of explicit 'use this when...' guidance leaves some inference to the agent, though the clarity of the purpose partially compensates.

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