get_player_recent_matches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal key behavioral traits: the approximate number of matches (~20), that filters are disregarded, and the enrichment fields. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication or rate-limit considerations, or error/edge cases for invalid account IDs. The provided behavioral details are useful but incomplete.

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 concise sentence that packs the essential information: target scope, unfiltered nature, and output enrichment. It avoids redundancy and is efficiently structured, with the most important qualifier ('regardless of filters') included upfront.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately lists the main output categories (hero names, win/loss, KDA, game mode, skill bracket) so an agent understands what to expect. It also covers the tool's core behavior and scope. Minor gaps include lack of return structure details (e.g., field names) and any mention of limitations like account existence, but for a simple 2-parameter tool these are acceptable.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters (account_id and language). The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('a player's ~20 most recent matches'), and distinct characteristics ('regardless of filters', enriched with hero names, win/loss, KDA, game mode, skill bracket). This makes it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_player_matches, which likely returns filtered or more extensive match data.

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 phrase 'regardless of filters' implies this tool is for a quick unfiltered snapshot of recent matches, which offers some guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_player_matches or other sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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