get_team_matches

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

No annotations are provided, leaving the description to carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the output is 'recent matches, enriched with hero names...' but does not mention pagination, rate limits, authentication, result limits beyond the schema, or how errors are handled. For a read-only list tool, this is minimal but not dangerously misleading; it simply omits additional behavior.

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, information-dense sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key enriching features. Every word serves to clarify the tool's scope. It is appropriately sized and avoids redundancy, earning the maximum score.

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?

Without an output schema, the description lightly describes the output as 'matches enriched with hero names and game mode labels', but it omits essential details like the exact structure of each match, supported date ranges, default limits, or any response examples. Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, this description is insufficient to fully enable an agent to call and interpret the result without guessing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented with their meaning. The description adds minimal extra value: it ties language to hero name localization (which the schema also mentions) and clarifies the output's enriched nature, but does not enrich the parameters themselves beyond what is already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 that the tool returns a pro team's recent matches, with a specific focus on enriched data (hero names and game mode labels). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_team (which returns team info) or get_player_recent_matches (which is player-centric). It could be more explicit about differentiating from get_pro_matches, but the 'team' qualifier is present and clear.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a team's match history, but it provides no explicit direction on when to choose it over alternatives like get_league_matches or get_pro_matches. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferable or exclusions. The guidance is only implicit in the title and one-line description, so it fails to fully inform selection.

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