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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the read-only nature. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the exact output fields (name, start time, state, entrant count, videogame, parent tournament, phases) and including a practical note about phase ids for use in get_event_sets. It does not contradict annotations and provides adequate behavioral context for a single-item get operation.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Get one event') before listing the output fields and the sibling pointer. Every clause adds value, with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently structured and easily scannable.

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 read-only, single-item retrieval with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (detailed field list) and how the phase ids can be reused. It lacks explicit mention of error conditions or authorization requirements, but those are not significantly needed for a simple get. The output list is sufficiently descriptive for an agent to interpret results.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (url, slug, eventId), with 100% schema_description_coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics or clarify the 'exactly one locator' constraint beyond what the schema states. Since the schema carries the burden, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Get one event (bracket) of a tournament.' It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'one event' and enumerates the exact data returned (name, start time, state, entrant count, videogame, parent tournament, phases). This strongly differentiates it from get_tournament_events (list) and get_event_sets (sets).

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 for when to use this tool by explaining what it returns and how the returned phase ids can be passed to get_event_sets. This implicitly guides agents on the workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., 'if you need all events, use get_tournament_events'), so it falls short of the highest bar.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description aligns by describing a read-only listing. It adds behavioral details about pagination and fetchAll support, and identifies the output fields. However, it does not disclose the fetchAll safety cap or other operational limits, leaving partial transparency despite the annotation coverage.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and output, the second the pagination/fetchAll functionality. All information is front-loaded with zero redundant words, 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?

The description covers the core listing behavior and output, but omits the critical requirement to provide exactly one locator (url, slug, or eventId) and does not mention the fetchAll safety cap. Given the tool has 7 optional parameters and no required ones, this gap could lead to incorrect calls. It is adequate but not fully 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter insight—it mentions 'Supports pagination or fetchAll' and the output fields, but does not clarify the locator requirement (exactly one of url/slug/eventId), which is only noted in the eventId description. No significant extra semantics beyond the schema.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'an event's entrants', and specifies the returned fields (seed, players, disqualification flag). It is specific enough to be distinguished from siblings like get_tournament_entrants by the 'event' scope, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_tournament_entrants or get_event_standings. The mention of pagination/fetchAll offers usage options but does not address alternative selection, so the agent gets no help in choosing between related tools.

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

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.

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it states ordering (best first), includes seed data for visibility of upsets, and implies support for both final and current placements. These details go beyond the annotation and help an agent anticipate the output format.

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?

Three short sentences with no redundancy: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a distinctive detail (seed inclusion), and the third provides a practical usage tip. The most important info is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 read-only tool with a detailed schema (including locator alternatives and pagination controls), the description is reasonably complete. It does not describe the exact return structure, but since there is no output schema and the tool's purpose is straightforward, this is not a critical gap. The usage tip and detail about seeds round out the essential context.

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 parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds only the perPage usage tip, which is helpful but does not significantly expand on parameter meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description adds marginal value over the schema.

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 retrieves an event's standings with final or current placements, ordered best first, and includes seed information. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like get_event or get_event_entrants, which serve different purposes.

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 a concrete usage hint ('Use perPage 8 for Top 8') that gives practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool compared to similar ones like get_event_entrants, though the purpose is clear enough to infer appropriate use.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned fields (gamer tag, team prefix, linked user) but does not disclose failure modes, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Since read-only behavior is annotated, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the additional context about id provenance is placed after the primary statement. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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 get-by-id tool with readOnly annotation and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the tool returns and where to get the id. It could mention error behavior (e.g., player not found) but that is not crucial for a basic lookup. The description is complete enough for agents to call it correctly.

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?

The schema already documents playerId ('Numeric start.gg player id') at 100% coverage. The description adds extra value by explaining where to find valid player ids ('set/entrant results (players[].playerId)'), which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('start.gg player'), and selection method ('by numeric player id'), and lists the key returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_player_sets, which returns sets rather than player details.

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?

It provides context on when to use the tool by explaining how to obtain the required playerId: 'Player ids appear in set/entrant results (players[].playerId).' This implies usage when you have a player id from those sources. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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

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

ReadOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation; the description adds behavioral specifics beyond that: ordering ('most recent first'), format normalization ('same normalized set form as get_event_sets'), and enrichment ('plus the event and tournament each set belongs to'). This gives the agent expectations for output shape and ordering without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the comparison to get_event_sets and mention of included fields are stated efficiently. Every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, ordering, format reference, and filter capability. It leaves nothing an agent needs to call it correctly, relying on the schema for parameter specifics and the annotations for safety.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond schema: it references filtering by state (e.g., COMPLETED) which maps to the 'state' parameter, but does not elaborate on syntax or defaults. The schema already handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a player's recent sets across tournaments'), and key characteristics: most recent first, normalized set form, and inclusion of event/tournament. It clearly distinguishes from get_event_sets by comparing the form, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It implies usage context by referencing get_event_sets and specifying that sets are across tournaments (rather than within a single event). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_event_sets or other alternatives. The guidance is clear enough for an agent to infer intent, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' directions.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the non-obvious behavior of returning empty queues when nothing is queued. It also discloses the exact structure of each stream entry (source, channel name, derived URL), providing valuable context beyond the annotation's safety 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 two sentences with no redundant information. The primary purpose and return details are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the alternative tool is named in the second. Every word earns its place with no padding.

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?

The description covers the return format and the empty-queue behavior, which is important. It names the alternative tool for a different query. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting, or any filtering, but for a stream queue tool this is likely acceptable. Given no output schema, the description's detail is fairly complete, though a mention of the locator requirement could be redundant since schema already covers it.

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 described (url, slug, tournamentId) and the requirement to provide exactly one locator stated in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a tournament's stream queue'), and details the content (streams with source, channel name, derived URL and assigned sets). It also explicitly distinguishes from get_tournament by saying 'For the list of configured streams regardless of queue, use get_tournament,' which clearly differentiates it from a sibling tool.

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 explicitly points to the alternative tool get_tournament for a different need (list of configured streams). It also clarifies that empty queues are returned, implying when to use this for queue status. This provides clear context and an explicit exclusion, making usage straightforward.

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

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.

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safe read-only nature, so the bar is lower. The description adds context by clarifying that these are tournament-level registrations (not per-event) and that the results include gamer tags, which is helpful beyond the annotation but not extensive. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is stated first, and the crucial usage distinction is delivered in the second sentence. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the core need: what it lists and when to use it instead of get_event_entrants. It does not mention pagination or return format, but those are inferable from the schema (page/perPage) and the read-only nature, making minor gaps.

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 the description need not repeat parameter details. The description does not add additional parameter guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the operation 'List' and the resource 'tournament's registered participants (attendees) with gamer tags', and differentiates it from the sibling get_event_entrants by noting the tournament-level scope. This is a clear, specific action and resource with sibling distinction.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool versus get_event_entrants: 'these are tournament-level registrations; for per-event entrants with seeding, use get_event_entrants instead.' This provides clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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

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.

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 cover safety. It adds the default for timeframe ('upcoming') and the ability to combine filters, but this mostly repeats schema info. No contradictions.

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?

A single sentence with the primary action front-loaded, followed by filtering details. No wasted words; efficient and easy to parse.

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 is a list operation with a rich schema covering all parameters, the description is adequate. It does not mention pagination (page/perPage) or return format, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make this acceptable.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by suggesting a combination pattern ('combine with afterDate/beforeDate and location filters as needed') and clarifies the default timeframe, which is reinforced but not redundant.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (tournaments for a specific videogame id), and the description clearly differentiates from siblings by requiring videogameId. The scope is 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?

Implies when to use it (for a specific videogame) and describes optional filters, but does not explicitly name alternatives like get_upcoming_tournaments or search_tournaments. Clear enough to route an agent, though not exhaustive.

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

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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds a helpful output example but discloses no further behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, rate limits, or edge cases like invalid slugs). This is adequate but not rich beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences plus a compact example with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the example is tightly scoped. Every element earns its place.

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 single-parameter resolver with no output schema, the description gives purpose, usage, and a return-shape hint via the example. It doesn't mention error behavior, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the read-only annotation.

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% and the schema already describes 'URL, path, or slug'. The description adds specificity by stating 'tournament or event URL (or slug)' and provides a concrete example that clarifies the expected format, going slightly beyond the schema description.

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 states a specific verb ('Turn... into'), a resource (start.gg URL/slug), and the exact output (internal ids and slugs). The concrete example clarifies the input and output shape, and it is clearly distinct from the sibling search/get tools, which operate on identifiers rather than URLs.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool first when a start.gg link is pasted, then call other tools with the returned ids. This provides a clear workflow and sequencing, leaving no ambiguity about when to select this tool over alternatives.

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

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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not repeat that. It adds value by disclosing the return type (ids) and providing an example mapping, which enriches understanding without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and usage, with no redundant words. Every sentence earns its place and the example adds immediate clarity.

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?

A simple search tool with read-only annotation, fully documented parameters, and a description covering purpose, usage, and next step. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 all parameters described (name, page, perPage). The description adds a concrete example for the name parameter and confirms the pagination defaults are not explained beyond schema, which is the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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?

States a specific verb (search), resource (start.gg's videogame catalog), and output (videogame ids). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tournament tools and positions itself as a prerequisite step for those tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to use this tool first to obtain an id and then pass that id to tournament discovery tools, including a concrete example. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implies the alternative tools that follow.

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