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

Annotations already communicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond that: one row per match, a field list, and pagination via take/skip. It does not cover result limits or edge cases, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the primary action and resource, the second covers output shape and pagination. Every sentence earns its place and the description avoids repeating schema details.

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 read-only history tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the input identifier, optional pagination, and the exact row contents. It only omits secondary details like default page size and the recency window for 'recent' matches.

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 only 25%, since only _apiKey has a description. The description compensates partially by identifying steam_account_id as the lookup key and explaining take/skip as pagination controls, but it leaves numeric ranges, defaults, and maximum page size undocumented.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Fetch a Dota 2 player's recent match history by Steam account id.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like player_heroes and live_matches by scope, and it enumerates the exact returned fields.

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 implies when to use the tool — whenever a player's recent match history is needed for a Steam account — but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions. The pagination note is a how-to detail rather than guidance on choosing this tool over alternatives.

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