riot_match_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that lookup is by PUUID and does not mention pagination, ordering, rate limits, region behavior, or what happens when the account has no matches.

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 filler. Its brevity is efficient, even though the content itself is underspecified.

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 four-parameter, zero-schema-description tool with no output schema, one sentence is not enough. Count, region, api_key, pagination, and return shape are all unexplained, so the description does not give enough context for reliable invocation.

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% across four parameters. The description explains only that puuid identifies the account, while count, region, and api_key are left entirely undocumented; an agent cannot tell what count controls, how region should be formatted, or whether api_key is required or optional.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Get match history" for a "LoL/Riot account by PUUID." This is clear enough to distinguish it from riot_get_match (single match) and riot_ranked, though the description does not explicitly name those siblings or clarify the boundary.

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 through "by PUUID" but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer whether this is for recent matches, paginated history, or a specific match list compared with riot_get_match.

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