faceit_getMatch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates the tool is read-only by nature (GET endpoint) and lists what fields are returned, but lacks details on response structure, potential errors, or prerequisites. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise, with a front-loaded main statement, a usage tip, and a clear parameter section. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description provides essential context. However, since there is no output schema, the description's mention of 'Match details' is vague; it could list more specific return fields or structure for full completeness.

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 0% description coverage for parameters; the description adds clarity by stating match_id is a path parameter, string, required, and its purpose. This compensation justifies a score above baseline.

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 it retrieves match details for a single match by match_id, listing included elements like lobby, factions, results, voting. It distinguishes from the sibling tool getMatchStats by specifying that the latter is for per-round/player stats.

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 tells when to use (fetch full match record) and provides an alternative tool for different granularity (getMatchStats for per-round/player stats). It does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool, but the alternative guidance is clear.

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