get_live_matches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the kind of data returned (average rank, spectate count, scoreboard, hero names) but does not mention whether live matches have inherent delays, whether authentication is needed, or any rate-limit or caching behavior. Basic transparency exists but lacks depth.

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?

A single sentence that packs the essential information: what is returned and the key fields. No filler words or redundant phrasing.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main payload adequately. However, it lacks any usage context or mention of possible limitations (e.g., number of results, update frequency), leaving an agent with only the bare functional 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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter (language) with a detailed description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add anything about parameters, but with full schema coverage a baseline of 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?

Description states a clear verb-resource pair ('Top live games currently in progress') and enumerates key return fields (average rank, spectate count, scoreboard, hero names). It is specific enough to be distinguished from generic match tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_pro_matches or get_match.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it returns, not the intended use case, prerequisites, or when a user should instead call a different tool.

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