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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses a genuinely useful behavioral trait not captured in annotations: the tab may not exist yet for a fresh match and the response signals this via `available`. It also describes the shape of what is returned (per map and whole-match aggregates). It does not mention rate limits or fallback behavior when the tab is missing, so it is informative rather than exhaustive.

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 purpose, then the availability caveat, then the id-source and alternative-tool guidance — a sensible ordering. The long enumeration of covered fields in the first sentence is dense but every clause names concrete economy metrics, so it earns its length; a bulleted breakdown would read slightly better.

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?

An output schema exists, annotations declare the read-only/open-world profile, and the description still adds the two things structured fields cannot convey: the freshness precondition and the identity of the id sources. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly appears to be 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 coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is already documented as a "Required numeric VLR match id." The description restates the same sourcing guidance (vlr_matches, vlr_results, vlr_event_matches) without adding format detail such as an example id or whether the numeric string can include a slug. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the full job.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Returns the Economy tab of one VLR.gg Valorant match") and enumerates the exact data scope: pistol/conversion/bonus records, win records by buy level, and round-by-round banks and buy levels. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from vlr_match (player scoreboard) and points to where the match id comes from, so an agent can separate it from siblings like vlr_match_rounds or vlr_match_performance.

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?

Gives clear routing guidance — "Provide the numeric match id from vlr_matches, vlr_results or vlr_event_matches; use vlr_match for the player scoreboard" — plus a precondition for fresh matches ("available is false until VLR publishes the tab"). It stops short of naming the other closely-related siblings (vlr_match_rounds, vlr_match_performance), whose data overlaps with the round-by-round content described here, so a small ambiguity remains.

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