Get tournament events

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by stating that the tool lists events (brackets) and can be filtered by videogame id, and that each returned event carries an id and slug suitable for later calls. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying the output's role and the filtering capability, without contradicting the read-only nature.

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. It front-loads the primary action ('List the events'), states the optional filter, and immediately provides actionable guidance on using the results. There is no fluff, repetition, or irrelevant details—every phrase contributes to the tool's purpose and usage.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns and how to interpret it. It does so by stating 'List the events ... Use the returned event id or slug', implying each event has an id and slug. It also mentions the optional videogame filter. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or a default (unfiltered) behavior, which a list endpoint might require. Given the read-only annotation and the simplicity of the operation, this is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.

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%: all four parameters (url, slug, videogameId, tournamentId) have meaningful descriptions, including examples and the constraint to provide exactly one locator. The description's mention of 'optionally filtered to one videogame id' paraphrases the videogameId parameter but does not add new semantics. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 starts with a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'events (brackets) of a tournament', and notes an optional filter by videogame id. It also points to downstream tools (get_event_entrants / get_event_sets / get_event_standings) that use the returned event id or slug, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_tournament or get_event that operate at different granularities.

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 provides clear context: this tool is a precursor to retrieving entrants, sets, or standings using the event id or slug. It implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (when you need a list of events for a tournament) and how to chain it with other tools. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if you already have an event id, use get_event directly), but the direction to downstream tools gives sufficient practical guidance.

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