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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read-only, non-destructive, open-world call. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying chronological ordering and the categories of information returned, without contradicting the 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 short sentences with no filler; the first sentence names the resource and the second details the output. Every clause 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 one-parameter read-only tool with a supplied output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only missing nuance is an edge-case caveat (for example, whether veto data is available before/during a match), which would have pushed it to a 5.

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 has 100% description coverage for the only parameter, including an example and explicit required flag. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so the baseline 3 applies; it contributes no extra semantics beyond 'for a CS2 match.'

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 ('Shows') and names a concrete resource: a CS2 match's pick/ban veto sequence. It enumerates exactly what is displayed (team bans, map picks, decider map, chronological order), which makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like cs2_team_map_stats or match_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?

The context is clearly a single CS2 match via matchId, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. Selection guidance is implied by the unique 'veto sequence' scope rather than explicitly provided.

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