opendota_match

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds a useful LARGE (~250 KB) warning and details the return structure including interpreting player_slot, providing additional behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the size warning placed early, followed by a compact return object, an example, and auth info. No 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?

Even without an output schema, the description includes a representative return object, explains player_slot semantics, flags response size, and notes auth requirements, making it a complete and practical specification for an agent.

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?

The schema covers match_id 100% with a description that mentions it's required and a URL path parameter. The description's example value matches the schema; no additional semantics are added beyond the example.

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 'Full detail for one match' and enumerates all included data (hero, items, KDA, gold/XP curves, objectives). This distinguishes it from list-type OpenDota siblings like opendota_pro_matches and opendota_public_matches.

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 doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, but the name and example imply it's for fetching a specific match after obtaining an ID. The schema notes the match_id comes from opendota_pro_matches, but that's not in the description itself.

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