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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful scope detail: only completed matches, final scores plus winner flags, and total_rows revealing history size. However, it does not disclose ordering guarantees, freshness/latency of 'most recent', or whether the underlying page vs JSON API sourcing changes result shape – relevant for an open-world scraper-backed tool.

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 what is returned, then pagination, then the follow-up tool – a sensible information order in one compact passage. The long game enumeration is useful but makes the opening sentence dense; a small amount of repetition of the page-size bound exists in the schema.

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 only three optional parameters and an output schema present, the definition covers everything needed: valid game values, pagination semantics, what the rows contain, and the natural next call. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents game, page and page_size including the 1-100 bound and default 10. The description restates the default and cap and adds only the mild signal that paging reads 'further pages' rather than refetching. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (returns) plus resource (most recent completed esports matches from GosuGamers) and an explicit game list including the 'all games' fallback. It is distinguishable from gosugamers_match by its list scope, but it never mentions the closely-named sibling gosugamers_matches, so the agent must infer the difference itself.

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 onward: 'Use gosugamers_match with the returned ids for detail', which is a clear handoff condition. Pagination guidance ('page and page_size read further pages') tells the agent how to continue. It stops short of saying when this is preferable to gosugamers_matches or gosugamers_team_results.

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