opendota_player_winloss

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and the exact return shape {win, lose}, which is useful context but does not go beyond these basics. No rate limits or edge-case behaviors are mentioned.

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 front-loaded: a one-line purpose, a clear return type, a practical example, and an auth note. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description explicitly documents the return structure and provides an example. Combined with full parameter descriptions in the schema and strong annotations, the tool is well-specified for an agent to invoke correctly. It lacks only deeper behavioral caveats, but these are not essential for this simple read-only endpoint.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for limit, hero_id, and account_id. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning, only referencing 'same filters as their match list' without detailing them, so it does not significantly surpass the schema.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: returning a player's win/loss totals. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it uses the same filters as the match list, which is a specific, actionable scope.

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 implies when to use this tool (when needing win/loss aggregates) via its phrasing, and it references the match list for filter context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools beyond an indirect reference.

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