Match details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: scope is limited to 'most recent finished' matches, the opponent filter is optional, and it instructs citing Liquipedia. It omits anything on limits beyond the schema's max of 3 or the return shape, so a 3 is fair.

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?

Content is front-loaded: what is returned comes first, the opponent option next, usage cues and the citation note last. Three sentences, each carrying information, with no filler. Slightly dense enumeration of fields, but nothing that should be cut.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return contents, and it does so thoroughly (scores, overtime, length, kills, maps, MVPs, champion picks). Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only a brief note on the 1-3 match limit would fully close the gap.

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 (team, wiki, limit, opponent) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the optional-opponent filtering intent but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific resource and the exact granularity returned: game-level details (scores, overtime, length, kills, maps, MVPs, champion picks) for a team's most recent finished matches. This clearly distinguishes it from outcome-level siblings like get_results and get_matches_between by content depth. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it falls just under a 5.

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 gives concrete usage context via example follow-up questions ('was it close?', 'who played which champion?') and notes the optional opponent filter, which helps an agent decide when to reach for this over summary tools. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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