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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds two things beyond that: the exact stat categories returned and a tournament-level availability restriction that annotations cannot express. It does not cover failure behavior for out-of-scope matches or latency/pagination, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences with zero padding: purpose first, then the concrete return contents, then the availability caveat. The stat enumeration is dense but each item is informational, not filler.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and it does so by enumerating the stat categories. The only gaps are error/edge-case handling for matches outside the allowed tournament levels, which is partially but not fully addressed.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents match_id. The description's phrase 'for a specific match ID' restates rather than enriches the parameter (no format, source, or lookup guidance), which is the baseline-3 case.

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 detailed match statistics for a specific match ID'), which is clearly distinct from list-*/search-* siblings and from show-match-live. It does not explicitly contrast itself with show-pair-stats or show-player-stats, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 a hard availability precondition (only for finals, fip_other, fip_platinum, major, p1, p2 tournament levels), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer show-match-live or show-match-stats alternatives, nor what to do when a match falls outside the listed levels.

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