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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: results are paginated ('one page'), an unknown match is a valid empty page rather than a failure, and the game scope is limited to cs2. These are the details that prevent an agent from misinterpreting an empty result as an error. It does not mention rate limits or ordering of returned clips.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then return contents, then input provenance and edge-case caveats. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 and 100% schema coverage, the description only needs to supply what structured data cannot: provenance of match_id, the cs2 restriction, and the empty-page semantics, all of which it does. The enumerated return-field list is somewhat redundant with the output schema and it never states clip ordering, which keeps it just below 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents game, limit, offset, and match_id including the upstream-id provenance and an example value. The description only reinforces the cs2-only constraint and the match_id source, adding little beyond the structured fields; the limit/offset pagination semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Get FACEIT Allstar clips') and immediately scopes it ('for one match'), which is the precise axis that separates it from the broader faceit_clips and faceit_best_clips sibling tools. It also enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what payload to expect without opening the output 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?

It gives the prerequisite for the required input ('Match ids come from any clip row returned by faceit-clips or faceit-best-clips') and states an applicability limit ('Only cs2 has Allstar clips'), plus the notable edge case that an unknown match yields an empty page rather than an error. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing statement, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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