get_league_matches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It labels the result 'enriched' but does not explain what enrichment means (e.g., hero/player names resolved, item names), how many matches are returned, pagination, or any rate-limit/authorization concerns. For a list-fetch tool backed by an external Dota API service, this is thin.

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 one compact sentence plus a prerequisite pointer; it is easy to scan and front-loads the resource before the guidance. Minor gap: it could mention the optional 'language' parameter's effect on enriched fields, but it is not bloated.

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 tool has only 2 parameters and a fully described schema, the description is almost complete for invocation. However, the word 'enriched' creates expectations about the return payload that the description never clarifies, and with no output schema and no annotations, an agent cannot predict what data fields come back.

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 documents both parameters well. The description adds no new semantics beyond 'league_id' being required, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the structured schema carries the weight.

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 says it returns 'Matches played in a league/tournament, enriched', which names a clear resource and implies a list/fetch operation. However, it does not distinguish itself among the many match-related tools (e.g., get_player_matches, get_team_matches, get_pro_matches), so an agent still has to infer scope differences among siblings.

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 the agent to use get_leagues first to find league ids, which is explicit prerequisite guidance. It does not state when NOT to use this tool or which sibling to prefer for player/team/pro match lists, but the league-scope clue covers the most important usage decision.

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