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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations don't carry: result ordering (newest first) and a concrete cost of 5 credits, which is decision-relevant for an agent. It omits pagination/result-count behavior, keeping it at 4.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the use case, then the output content, then cost. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 field list is arguably redundant, but the description never addresses paging (limit max 200, offset) or how league/season narrow the log — gaps that matter for a 5-parameter list tool. Adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 60%: league, season and player_id are described, but limit and offset have no descriptions anywhere. The description mentions no parameter at all, so it does nothing to close the gap on the two undocumented paging parameters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('a player's match log') with scope (per player), ordering (newest first) and the fields returned. An agent can distinguish it from get_game (single game), get_player (profile) and list_games (game list) without opening a 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?

The 'Use for a player's match log' opener gives a clear usage trigger and the newest-first ordering signals the right context for recent form. It never names an alternative or an exclusion (e.g., when to prefer get_game for a single fixture), so it stays below a 5.

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