get_tournament

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get information' implies a read-only lookup, but the description does not disclose output format, authentication, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing dash well, so it is concise and easy to parse. The brevity is acceptable, though it does sacrifice useful detail.

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 streaming and no annotations, the tool is underspecified. An agent still cannot know what data will be returned, how to construct url_id, or how this relates to the round and group variants.

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 only parameter, url_id, has 0% schema description coverageebb, and the description does not explain what url_id is or what format it should take. The field name hints it may be a URL identifier, but the description needed to compensate for the bare schema and did not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('information about a tournament on Chess.com'). It is clear on its own, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_tournament_round or get_tournament_round_group.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives is provided. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this tool is the right choice compared to get_tournament_round or get_tournament_round_group.

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