opendota_pro_matches

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds valuable detail: the exact return fields, the clarification that Dota sides are RADIANT and DIRE (not home/away), and that radiant_win is the result. It also states no auth is needed, which is helpful operational context.

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 reasonably concise, with a clear opening line and structured return field list. The 'Example: Latest pro matches' line is somewhat filler, but the overall text is efficient and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 simple read-only nature, one optional parameter, and strong annotations, the description is complete enough. The return fields are enumerated, the auth requirement is stated, and the pagination parameter is documented in the schema, so an agent has sufficient context to invoke it 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?

The schema already provides a complete description of the only parameter (less_than_match_id) with pagination semantics. The tool description adds nothing extra about parameters, so the schema carries the full burden, yielding baseline 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 returns recent professional matches with teams, league, duration, and result. The inclusion of 'professional' distinguishes it from the sibling tool opendota_public_matches, so the resource and scope are specific.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like opendota_public_matches or opendota_match. The name and description imply it is for pro matches, but there is no direct comparison or exclusion of other tools.

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