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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Read' conveys a non-mutating operation, and the description adds important constraints: party eligibility and bearer authentication. It does not describe error cases or response shape, but for a simple get-by-id tool the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, followed by relevant field details and prerequisites. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, field scope, authorization, and eligibility. It omits only minor details such as not-found or permission-failure behavior, which are not essential for selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to match_id. The phrase 'by id' clarifies that match_id is the identifier selecting the marketplace match, which is useful beyond the bare schema. With only one, well-named parameter and no enums or nested objects, this is sufficient.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('marketplace match'), and an identifying criterion ('by id'). It also names the included fields, making the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from sibling tools like market_accept or market_listings.

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 establishes clear context: use this to read a single match by id. It also provides prerequisites ('You must be a party to the match. Bearer required.'), so an agent knows eligibility conditions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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