get_match_history

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavior: default result size, the 50-item cap, and that setting `season` overrides `count` and pulls up to 100 matches from that act. It does not state that it is a read-only call or mention failure modes for unknown Riot IDs, but the mutation/auth surface for a 'list' tool is minimal.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and row shape, then the sizing/season semantics, then the hand-off to get_match_details. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 per-field return documentation is not strictly required, yet the description still names the row columns, which helps an agent decide whether this tool answers the question. Combined with the count/season interplay, this is nearly complete for a low-risk listing tool; only mode/region guidance is thin.

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, but the description adds the practical interaction between `count` and `season` (season silently wins) that an agent might otherwise miss when scanning property descriptions. It also frames `map`/`agent` as filters, though it does not surface the `mode` enum or `region` values.

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 ('List matches') plus the exact shape of each result row (map, agent, result, score, KDA, ACS, ADR, HS%, KAST, first kills/deaths, ACS rank, party size). This makes it trivially distinguishable from get_match_details and the report-style siblings, which operate on a single match or aggregate stats.

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 concrete routing conditions: defaults to the last 10, pass a larger `count` (max 50) or `season` for a whole act, and take the match_id to get_match_details for per-match depth. It does not explicitly exclude use for aggregate/trend analysis (get_performance_report, compare_periods), which is the remaining gap.

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