riot_match_history

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read operation but lacks details on match history scope (recent, all?), pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond requiring an API key (not explained). Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Description is a single, direct sentence without fluff. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness, e.g., noting optional parameters.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, the description is insufficient. Does not explain return format, error handling, or how to interpret results. Agent would need additional context to use effectively.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. Only 'PUUID' is mentioned; 'region', 'count', and 'api_key' are not described. Fails to add meaning for 3 out of 4 parameters, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'match history' for a LoL/Riot account by PUUID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like riot_get_match (specific match), riot_summoner (summoner info), and riot_ranked (ranked data) by focusing on 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention that PUUID may be obtained from riot_summoner, or that riot_get_match is for individual matches. No prerequisites or exclusions provided.

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