get_player_tournaments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' and gives no information about response format, pagination, ordering, data freshness, or any edge cases, leaving the tool's runtime behavior opaque.

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 clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and resource immediately, 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?

Although the tool is simple with one required parameter, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what a successful response contains or how tournaments are represented. It also omits practical details like whether results are paginated or limited, so an agent has only the bare minimum to invoke the tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameter, and it partially does by tying the request to 'a player' whose username is supplied. However, it does not specify username format, case sensitivity, or any constraints beyond what the schema's property name already implies.

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 action and resource ('Get tournaments involving a player on Chess.com'), making its function clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_tournament or get_player_matches, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 choose this tool over related tools such as get_tournament, get_player_matches, or get_player_clubs. The usage context is only implicit in the name and one-line description, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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