opendota: Get pro matches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds context by specifying the tool returns recent matches and lists the included fields, which is useful beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and key fields, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without any redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple listing tool with no input parameters, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (recent pro matches with specific fields) and how to get more detail. No output schema is present, but the description covers the essential information.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters, and it implies the tool returns an unfiltered list of recent matches. A score of 4 is appropriate given the lack of parameters.

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 defines the tool as retrieving recent professional Dota 2 matches and lists key data fields (teams, league, duration, winner). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool opendota_get_match by directing users to that tool for full match details.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for a list of recent pro matches) and when to use an alternative: 'Use a match_id with opendota_get_match for full detail.' This provides clear guidance on tool selection.

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