get_lifetime_matches_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It states it returns 'Lifetime stats and match list' and mentions a 'different API endpoint,' but it does not explain pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or explicitly confirm it is read-only (though 'Get' implies it).

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 well-structured with an Args section and a Returns line. However, the first two sentences are slightly redundant: 'Get lifetime match statistics (different API endpoint)' and 'Provides aggregate lifetime stats and match history' convey similar information. Otherwise, it is efficient.

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 complexity (7 params) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all parameters and the return type. It lacks guidance on valid values for mode and map_filter, but this is not critical since the output schema exists and the parameters are documented.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. The Args section thoroughly explains all 7 parameters, including region codes (ap, na, eu, kr, br, latam), optional filters, and defaults for page and size. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types.

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 the tool's function: 'Get lifetime match statistics' and 'Provides aggregate lifetime stats and match history.' It distinguishes itself by noting it is a 'different API endpoint,' but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like get_match_history_by_name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_match_history_by_name or get_account_details. The description only explains what the tool does, not the context in which it should be chosen.

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