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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that calls are parallel-safe and carry an upstream cost of 2–5, which is operationally meaningful for an agent planning batches. It also flags that media and player stats are best-effort ('when available' / 'when the API provides them'), so the agent knows parts of the payload may be absent rather than assuming a complete record.

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 composite payload summary is front-loaded in the first line, followed by tightly labeled blocks for when-to-use, alternatives, exclusions, and operational traits. Every line carries decision-relevant information, and the example is compact rather than redundant.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it instead spends its budget on selection guidance, exclusions, cost, and concurrency. For a 5-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so game, view, matchId, includeMedia, and includePlayerStats are already documented in the schema; the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond reiterating the example payload. The example object is somewhat useful for showing a typical completed call, but the per-parameter meaning is fully carried by the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 definition names a specific resource — a composite match card composed of scoreline, key context, player performances, and VOD/demo links — so the agent knows exactly what payload it gets. It is explicitly differentiated from siblings ('Prefer over match_details for chat answers and default UIs'), making selection unambiguous without opening either 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?

It gives positive conditions ('Match recap / default match UI', 'After user selects a live or completed matchId'), negative conditions ('Do not use when: no matchId yet'), and named alternatives with the routing rule for each (match_details for timelines/map trees/live state, match_preview for pre-match). Both the when and the when-not are covered.

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