get_recent_matches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the exact number of matches (20), the sorting order (newest first), and the detailed return fields. It also includes an example output, making the behavior highly predictable. It does not cover edge cases like player-not-found errors, but for a read-only query tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Although the description is long, it is well-structured with clear sections (summary, use cases, returns, args, example). Every sentence provides useful information, and the front-loaded first sentence immediately states the core purpose. The length is justified by the complexity of the return data.

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?

The description is highly complete for a tool with one parameter and no annotations. It covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, the full return schema with type descriptions, common query examples, and a worked example. The only missing piece might be error handling, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema only defines player_name as a string with no description, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: the 'Args' section explains player_name is 'The Dota 2 player name to search for,' and the 'Common queries' section provides concrete usage examples with actual player names, adding significant meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a player's 20 most recent Dota 2 matches with performance statistics, which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly focusing on 'recent matches' and including performance metrics, while sibling tools like get_match_details or get_player_win_loss serve different purposes.

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 provides an explicit 'Use this when users ask' section with concrete example queries, which is strong usage guidance. However, it does not mention when NOT to use this tool or explicitly point to alternative sibling tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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