get_match_details

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses return contents (players, rounds, scores) but does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or that it's a read-only operation. This is basic coverage.

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 tool description is compact, with a clear one-sentence summary followed by concise argument and return sections. There is minimal redundancy despite duplicating schema information.

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?

As a simple two-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about inputs and expected return data. It lacks explicit default-value information for region, but that is available in the schema.

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 has no descriptions, so the description compensates by defining match_id as 'Match identifier' and region as 'Region code' with a list of possible values. However, 'Match identifier' adds little beyond the parameter name.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific match'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like match history or MMR lookups.

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 implies usage for retrieving one match's details but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_match_history_by_name or mention when not to use it.

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