Get upcoming tournaments

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation is read-only, so the description doesn't need to cover that. It adds value by disclosing the result set criteria (not ended, including in-progress) and the sort order (soonest first), which are behavioral traits beyond the annotation. It also hints at the filter mechanics, making the tool's runtime behavior more predictable.

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 two concise sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the filter capabilities are summarized in one compact sentence. Every word adds value, 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?

Given the tool has 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is returned (upcoming tournaments), ordering, and available filters. It does not explicitly mention pagination defaults, but the schema describes those. The mention of the videogame id source and the time window covers the most critical parameters. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's core behavior without missing major aspects.

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 86%, so the schema documents most parameters well. The description adds a specific hint on how to obtain the videogame id (from search_videogames), which is useful. However, it does not clarify pagination semantics or the optionality of all filters in full detail; the schema already covers that. The added value is marginal but positive.

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 tool lists tournaments that have not ended (including in-progress), sorted soonest first, which precisely distinguishes it from search_tournaments or get_tournaments_by_videogame. The inclusion of the in-progress nuance and the mention of filters make the purpose unambiguous.

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 the usage context (upcoming tournaments with optional filters) and even directs the agent to search_videogames for the videogame id, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_tournaments or get_tournaments_by_videogame. An agent might need to infer when to use this versus a search that could return ended tournaments.

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