faceit_getPlayerRecentMatchStats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains pagination, per-match granularity, date filtering, and parameter constraints. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits or authentication requirements, and the return format is vague ('Player stats for matches'). Still, for a read operation, the description is fairly transparent.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, usage guidance, endpoint, and parameter list. Each sentence adds value, but the parameter details could be slightly more concise without losing clarity. Overall, it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should have explained the return structure in more detail. It only states 'Returns: Player stats for matches', which is insufficient for an agent to understand the response format. The description does well to differentiate from siblings, but completeness suffers from the vague return description.

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 the description must fully explain parameters. It does so effectively, detailing each parameter's location (path/query), type, constraints (min/max, default), and purpose for date filters (epoch milliseconds). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's basic title and type.

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 states a specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'paginated per-match statistics for a player in a specific game'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning getPlayerLifetimeStats and getPlayerHistory, making the tool's unique purpose evident.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to page through per-match stats) and when not, providing clear alternatives: 'For career totals use getPlayerLifetimeStats. For the timeline of matches without stats use getPlayerHistory.' This is excellent guidance.

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