get_hero_recent_matches

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the return format (per-player rows with account id, rank, KDA, items-lite) and notes the data is 'enriched', though it does not specify what enrichment entails. It omits details about pagination, rate limits, or that only public matches are accessible, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, compact sentence that conveys the resource, scope, and return row composition without wasted words. The term 'enriched' is slightly vague but the overall structure is efficient and front-loaded with the most important information.

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 low parameter count, complete schema, and absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable starting point. However, it lacks mention of default behavior (e.g., limit default), pagination, or any filtering nuances. Since the tool has many siblings and no annotations, a bit more context on expected use or data shape would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already thoroughly documents all three parameters, including hero_id resolution via search_dota_entities and language options. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches recent public matches for a hero, with a specific resource (hero) and a specific scope (recent public matches). It also hints at the row-level structure (account id, rank, KDA, items-lite). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_hero_players, but the verb and resource are unambiguous enough for an agent to understand the core purpose.

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 usage context is implied by 'recent public matches on a hero'—an agent can infer this is for viewing recent hero match data. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling list includes many hero-related tools, so more specific routing would have been helpful.

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