get_match_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure and does well: it enumerates what each view returns (per-player stats, per-round sides, buys, first blood) and warns that the narrative view is long by default. The read-only nature is only implied by the 'get' verb, and nothing is said about auth or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by one paragraph per view, so a scanning agent finds the mode decision immediately. The parenthetical stat lists are dense but arguably earn their place as return-content previews; the backticked inline field names keep it navigable.

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?

An output schema exists, so raw return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still previews content per view, which aids mode choice. For a 5-parameter tool with one required ID, the only real gap is error behavior for invalid match_id or rounds out of range.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3; the description exceeds it by explaining what the `view` enum values actually produce, that `focus_username` marks the player as (YOU) in narrative output, and that `rounds` is 1-indexed and narrative-only. `region` is left entirely to 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?

States a specific scope — 'Full details of one match' — which clearly separates it from the list-oriented get_match_history and report-oriented siblings. It also names the two modes it can return. It stops short of explicitly naming siblings as alternatives, so a 4 rather than 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?

Gives explicit mode-selection guidance: `summary` is the default, `narrative` is 'best for spatial/story questions like where do we die on attack'. It also explains when to pass `rounds` ('it is long otherwise'). No exclusion against get_match_history or get_site_report is stated.

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