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

Annotations already cover the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does disclose the granularity of the payload — hand by hand, both players' cards, every move — which is useful since no output schema exists. However, it says nothing about behavior for a match that is not finished or not found, nor about auth requirements beyond what the api_key parameter schema states.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its payload are stated immediately. It is efficient, though being a bare fragment it reads more like a caption than a complete instruction.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back, which is the main thing the schema cannot express. It is incomplete on the operational edges — what happens if the match is unfinished, missing, or unauthorized — which an agent would need before calling it confidently.

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 match_id and api_key are already documented in the schema (including the Bearer-header alternative for api_key). The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the 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 description names a specific resource (a finished match) and enumerates its contents: hand by hand, both players' cards, every move. Combined with the title 'Go over a finished match' the agent can tell this is a replay/history retrieval tool, clearly distinct from make_move or join_queue. It stops short of a 5 because the description is a noun fragment with no explicit verb, leaving the action itself to be inferred.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, no mention that the match must already be finished (only implied by the name), and no reference to any alternative such as scout_agent for a match still in progress. The only guidance is the implicit precondition embedded in the phrase 'a finished match.'

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