opendota_player_matches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing how to interpret a win ('(player_slot < 128) == radiant_win') and noting 'Auth: none needed.' It also specifies the return structure, which is especially valuable because there is no output schema.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a return-format block with win interpretation, a minimal example, and an auth note. Every element earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description fully discloses the return fields and the win heuristic, which are essential for understanding the response. It also covers auth requirements and provides a working example. Combined with thorough schema parameter descriptions and safety annotations, the tool is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 all four parameters (account_id, win, limit, hero_id) are already well-documented in the input schema. The description's example repeats account_id and limit usage but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, thus meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 player's recent matches with hero, result and KDA,' which uses a specific verb (retrieve/list) and resource (player matches) and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like opendota_player_winloss or opendota_player_heroes by focusing on the match history with performance stats.

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 provides clear context (recent match history with hero, result, KDA) and a concrete example invocation, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives such as opendota_player_heroes or opendota_match. The example implies typical usage but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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