Query a Liquipedia datapoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of Liquipedia's condition syntax and that conditions are combined with structured filters (though no structured filters parameter exists, which may cause confusion). It does not mention return format, pagination behavior beyond offset/limit, rate limits, or authentication. This is adequate for a read-only query but leaves gaps in behavior understanding.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('low-level access'). The second sentence provides essential usage details without fluff. Every part is substantive, and there is no redundancy with 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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the main functionality and condition syntax, but it lacks details about the return format (e.g., structure of the output) and how multiple wikis are combined. Given the absence of output schema, a brief mention of what the response contains would improve completeness. Still, the core purpose is well-covered.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the raw conditions syntax with an example and mentioning that conditions are combined with structured filters. However, it does not provide additional semantics for other parameters (e.g., how 'query' differs from 'conditions') beyond the schema. The marginal improvement over schema justifies a score of 3.

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 it provides 'low-level access to any Liquipedia v3 datapoint' and lists all supported datapoints. The verb 'query' combined with the explanation of the condition syntax makes the purpose unmistakable. It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., list_matches) by positioning itself as lower-level.

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 explains that users need to provide a wiki and optional raw conditions, and it hints at usage by mentioning the condition syntax. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., when custom queries are needed vs. when to use for simple listing), and it lacks a 'when not to use' note. Still, the guidance is clear enough for most agents.

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