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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description goes further by disclosing non-obvious section precedence (sections[] overrides booleans), the LoL gameId requirement for liveState/advanced, parallel-safety, and upstream cost range. This is valuable behavioral context beyond 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?

Although longer than average, the description is tightly structured with headers and bullets that serve distinct purposes. Every section adds value: core purpose, use cases, exclusions, selection logic, opeational details, and an example. It remains efficient given the tool's 7-param complexity.

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 complex tool with 7 params, an output schema, and many siblings, this description covers all necessary guidance: when to use, when not to use, section selection semantics, LoL-specific requirements, paralllel-safety, upstream cost, and an inline example. Nothing essential 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?

The input schema fully describes each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds critical semantics: sections[] wins over booleans, LiveState/advanced require gameId, and section selection options. This significantly clarifies how the parameters interact in practice.

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 frames match_details as a deep match package with optional timelines, advanced stats, live state/snapshots, map/game tree, and media inventory. It is easily distinguishable from match_summary and lighter siblings, though the opening line lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'.

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 explicit 'When to use' cases, explicitly prefers match_summary for short answers/default cards, and warns against using it for first-pass live boards in favor of live_matches + match_summary. It also explains when to use the booleans versus the sections[] list.

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