lol-summoner-game-history

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about what data is retrieved ('recent match history') and implies it's for improvement/advice purposes, which adds some behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'recent' means in terms of timeframe.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides usage guidelines. There's no wasted language, though the second sentence could be slightly more structured. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 that annotations cover the safety profile (read-only, non-destructive) and the schema has 100% coverage for parameters, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains when to use the tool and what it returns. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description mentions what data is retrieved ('recent match history'), which helps compensate.

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 has 100% description coverage, with all parameters well-documented. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. It mentions 'specific summoner' which aligns with the game_name/tag_line parameters, but provides no new information about parameter usage or relationships.

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's purpose: 'Retrieves the recent match history of a specific summoner.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that tells exactly what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lol-summoner-search' or 'valorant-player-match-history' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'If a user mentions a specific summoner, wants to know about their recent matches, wants to know how to improve or wants to get an advice, you *must* always call this function.' This gives clear triggers for when to use the tool, including specific user intents and scenarios.

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