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

The description discloses the state-change behavior of each outcome: mandate closes, mandate reactivates, or OpenMandate checks back later. It also warns that submission affects the user's mandate and matching status, adding useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

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 compact, front-loads the action, and uses a scannable bullet list for the three outcomes. Every sentence adds value, including the important user-confirmation caveat, with no filler.

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 two-parameter action with no output schema, the description provides the precondition, per-value behavioral effects, and a user-confirmation requirement. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and understand the consequences.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning by defining what each outcome value does and clarifies that match_id refers to a confirmed match, going beyond the schema's minimal 'Match outcome.' description.

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 and object ('Report how a confirmed match went') and enumerates the three outcome states with their consequences. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like openmandate_respond_to_match or openmandate_close_mandate, even though the 'succeeded' outcome relates to closing a mandate.

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 precondition: available after both parties accepted and contact info was revealed. It also instructs the agent to confirm the outcome with the user before submitting. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the timing and state effects make when-to-use clear.

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