Latest match results

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the default top-tier-only filtering, the conditional enrichment of champion picks and MVPs when 3 or fewer matches return, and two output-handling rules (read each line independently, do not invent totals). That is rich behavioral context for a read tool.

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 returns first, then filter behavior, then the conditional detail, then output rules. Six sentences is on the long side but each carries distinct information; the closing citation/anti-totals instructions are publisher requirements rather than 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-format burden and does so: line-by-line results, series score, winner, per-game scores, plus the low-count enrichment case. Filters, defaults, and the required wiki argument are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value the schema fields do not: it explains the interaction rules — that max_tier and include_minor_types are inert unless no team/tournament filter is supplied, and that team and tournament combine as an AND/OR filter set rather than independent switches.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('finished matches') and immediately enumerates the payload: series score, winner by name, and every game's score. This content profile distinguishes it from get_upcoming (future matches) and get_match_details (single-match depth) without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context: filter by team and/or exact tournament name, and without either filter only top-tier matches return. It does not name when to prefer get_match_details or get_matches_between instead, so an agent must infer the boundary from the payload description rather than being routed explicitly.

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