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

Given annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, the description adds important behavioral context: 'succeeded' closes the mandate, 'failed' reactivates it for new matches, and 'ongoing' prompts later checks. It also warns about affecting the user's mandate and matching status. This goes beyond the minimal annotation information.

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 purpose, followed by a clear bulleted list of outcomes. The important user-confirmation warning is set off with 'IMPORTANT'. Every sentence provides key information without redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, this description covers prerequisites, outcome effects, and user guidance. It fully equips an agent to decide when and how to invoke the 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. The description enhances the 'outcome' parameter by detailing the real-world consequences of each enum value, which the schema merely labels as 'Match outcome.' This adds meaningful 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 opens with 'Report how a confirmed match went', which clearly specifies the action (report) and resource (match outcome). It explicitly enumerates the three possible outcomes and their implications, distinguishing this tool from siblings like openmandate_close_mandate or openmandate_respond_to_match.

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 states the precondition 'Available after both parties accepted and contact info was revealed', clearly defining when to use it. It also advises confirming outcomes with the user. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context of 'confirmed match' and the outcome effects provide sufficient usage boundaries.

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