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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read-only operation and 'current agent' clarifies the visibility scope, but it does not state ordering, default recency window, pagination, or whether game_id filtering is server-side. These are useful but not disclosed.

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?

One short sentence carries the core purpose and scope with no filler. The information is front-loaded 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the core purpose is stated and return values are covered by the schema. However, because there are no annotations and no parameter explanations, the description is not fully complete on its own; an agent would need to infer limit's meaning and what game_id does.

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 0% and the description says nothing about limit or game_id. The parameter names and defaults imply some meaning, but the description adds no value beyond the bare schema, so agents cannot tell whether game_id is a filter, an anchor, or required for history.

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 ('Return') and names the exact resource ('recent match history') plus scope ('current agent'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like arcade_leaderboard and arcade_state without needing to inspect the schema.

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 guidance is given about when to call arcade_history versus the many history/state siblings. There is no explicit exclusion such as 'use arcade_chat_read for chat logs' or mention of required conditions like authentication.

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