valorant-player-match-history

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds context by specifying the resource ('match history') and required inputs, but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, error handling, or data format, which could be useful given the lack of an output schema.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Retrieve match history') and specifies the required inputs. There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the simple input schema with full coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate for a read-only tool. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values (e.g., match details, timestamps), which could leave gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior for an AI agent.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters in the input schema. The description mentions 'game name and tag line' but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('match history for a Valorant player'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'valorant-leaderboard' or 'valorant-characters-statistics', which might also involve player data but serve different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other Valorant-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid game name and tag line) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic action.

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