getPlayerMatchHistory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned but doesn't mention critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination/limits on 'recent' matches, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states what data is returned, the second suggests use cases. Both sentences add value, though the second could be more specific. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (structure of match results), what 'recent' means (timeframe/limit), or behavioral constraints. For a data retrieval tool with rich sibling context, more completeness is needed.

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% with the single parameter 'identifier' documented as 'Player ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'recent match results' with specific data elements (heroes played, performance metrics, map details, outcome), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like getPlayerProfile (likely general info) or listMaps (map catalog), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives for match history.

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?

The description mentions 'tracks improvement and hero performance trends' which implies usage for analysis purposes, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like searchPlayer or getPlayerProfile. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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