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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it signals a read-only operation, discloses auth and access requirements, and clarifies that dispute_window_end is only populated on oracle-path trades and represents the dispute deadline. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds only high-value details: access condition, auth requirement, and an important field nuance. Every sentence earns its place, and the trade_settlement pointer is a compact way to avoid misuse.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers authentication, required party status, field-specific behavior, and the relevant sibling alternative. Nothing invocation-critical is missing.

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 compensate for the single match_id parameter. It adds that the id refers to one marketplace match, but it does not explain the id's format, origin, or how an agent should obtain it. The property name and title already carry much of the semantic weight.

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 'Read one marketplace match by id', clearly identifying the verb, resource, and scope. It also names trade_settlement as the sibling for whole-trade settlement legs, which distinguishes this tool from related siblings.

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?

It explicitly states the requirement that the caller must be a party to the match, that Bearer auth is required, and it directs the agent to trade_settlement when the whole trade's settlement legs are needed. This gives concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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