Search tournaments

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already informs the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the filter enumeration—no mention of pagination limits, result ordering defaults, or any side effects. Since the annotation covers the safety aspect and the description doesn't contradict it, a 3 is appropriate; extra behavioral detail would have been beneficial but isn't strictly necessary.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose first and then lists the filter classes. There is no fluff or redundancy; every element earns its place. It is concise yet information-dense, ideal for agent consumption.

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 covers the essential filter categories without enumerating each parameter. It omits details like default sorting or pagination behavior, but those are documented in the input schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope and select appropriate filters, though it could mention the result shape or any relationship to streaming tournaments. Slight room for improvement, but not incomplete.

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% with each parameter documented. The description adds value by grouping filters into semantic categories ('date range (afterDate/beforeDate on start time)', 'upcoming/past', 'open registration'), which helps the agent quickly infer combinational intent. This grouping goes beyond the individual descriptions and slightly elevates the score above the baseline.

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 explicitly states 'Search start.gg tournaments' with a clear verb and resource, and enumerates the flexible filter categories (name, videogame ids, location, date range, upcoming/past, registration). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific subsets like upcoming or per-videogame tournaments.

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 frames the tool as a general, filter-driven search ('flexible filters'), implying it is the go-to for broad tournament discovery. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the specific sibling tools (e.g., get_upcoming_tournaments), leaving the routing decision partially to the agent. This is a minor gap rather than misleading guidance.

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