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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) already establish the safe-read, external-fetch profile, so the description's job is supplementary — and it delivers two useful behaviors: un-published fields come back empty, and an unknown id yields not found. It doesn't discuss rate limits or caching, but the added error/null semantics are genuine value beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the payload enumeration, then the id prerequisite and edge-case behavior. The long field list is dense but earns its place by telling the agent what data is retrievable per title; two or three words of filler could still be trimmed.

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 one-parameter read with an output schema, the definition covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, where the required id comes from, what happens with unpopulated fields and invalid ids. No gap remains that would cause a mis-call.

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 100% and the parameter's own description already states it is a required numeric id from gosugamers_match's games list. The description restates the same dependency without adding format, range, or lookup guidance, so baseline 3 is appropriate — the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb and resource ("Returns one game (map) of a GosuGamers esports match") followed by an enumeration of the exact payload: map, per-team score/side/first-pick, picks/bans with player, lineups, round scores, placements, kills/points, VODs. This cleanly distinguishes it from gosugamers_match (which supplies the games list) and gosugamers_games.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: game_id must come "from the games list of gosugamers_match", so the caller knows the prerequisite call. It gives clear context but does not spell out when NOT to use this (e.g. to get match-level summary use gosugamers_match), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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