get_player_matches

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

Without annotations, the description partially carries the behavioral burden by saying the returned rows are enriched with hero names, win/loss, and game-mode labels, and that the history is rated. It does not disclose default significance/Turbo behavior, sorting/pagination defaults, or response details beyond those three enrichments.

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 compact: two sentences that front-load the action and resource, summarize commonly used filter categories, mention enriched rows, and point to summary alternatives. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema content.

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?

It gives the core context needed for a filtered row-level match-history call and explicitly handles the summary-use case. With 21 parameters and no output schema, one might expect a complete output/return hints or a note on paging/limits; those are left to the schema or are otherwise absent.

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?

Because the input schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a descriptive sentence, the baseline is 3. The high-level list of filters in the description adds no parameter syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and object: "Get a player's rated match history," and lists the available filter dimensions and output enrichments. It also distinguishes itself from its summary siblings by naming get_player_win_loss and get_player_heroes as alternatives.

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 final sentence gives an explicit when-not-to-use rule: summary requests should use get_player_win_loss or get_player_heroes. It does not, however, contrast this tool with the similarly named get_player_recent_matches sibling, leaving some selection nuance to the agent.

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