Search HLTV teams, players, and events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety behavior. The description adds the workflow context (search before filtering) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as fuzzy matching, result ordering, pagination, or rate limits. With strong annotations, a moderate score is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the use-case guidance. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes meaning.

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 tool's simplicity, a rich output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is largely complete: it names the domain, entity types, and a key workflow. It omits details like result format or edge-case behavior, but those are covered by the output schema and annotations, so the description suffices.

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 provides descriptions for 'query' and 'types', covering 67% of parameters, but 'limit' lacks a prose description. The description text itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already says, and the term 'teams, players, or events' simply aligns with the types enum. This is adequate but not enhanced.

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 searches HLTV.org for Counter-Strike teams, players, or events, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning itself as a pre-filtering step for matches when the exact display name is unknown.

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 explicitly indicates when to use the tool ('Use this before filtering matches by team when the exact HLTV display name is not already known'), providing a clear usage context. However, it stops short of naming alternative tools (e.g., list_hltv_matches) or stating when not to use it beyond the known-name condition.

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