riot_get_match

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare get operation, such as regional routing requirements, authentication expectations, or what kind of match details are returned.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and lookup key are stated immediately.

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 three-parameter Riot API lookup, the definition omits important context for region and api_key and provides no usage distinction from match-history siblings. Annotations cover safety, but the description is not complete enough to confidently invoke the tool across regions or authenticated contexts.

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 must compensate for all three parameters. It only reinforces matchId as the lookup key and says nothing about the optional region or api_key parameters, their formats, or when they are required.

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 names a specific verb and resource: getting details for a specific Riot match by match ID. It is clear enough to distinguish from a general match-history tool, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as riot_match_history.

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 phrase 'by match ID' implies the tool should be used when a specific match identifier is already known. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as riot_match_history for listing matches.

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