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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that it returns an array of matches with specific fields and is sortable by date, providing additional 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the key purpose ('Recent match history for a Dota 2 player') and efficiently lists output fields and sorting capability.

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?

The description covers purpose, output fields, and sorting. Given the presence of annotations and output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is sufficient for a list retrieval tool. It lacks usage guidelines but is otherwise 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?

Both parameters (account_id, limit) are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add new parameter information but mentions 'sortable by date,' which is not a parameter but a feature. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 states the tool returns recent match history for a Dota 2 player, listing specific fields (match_id, hero, kills/deaths/assists, etc.) and mentions it is sortable by date. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like opendota.matches.detail (single match) and opendota.players.summary.

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 implies usage (player match history) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like opendota.players.summary or opendota.matches.detail. No when-not or alternative comparisons are provided.

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