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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's extra value is the authorization rule: 'participant keys only see their own match.' That is meaningful, non-obvious behavioral context an agent cannot derive from the schema. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about error behavior for a non-existent or inaccessible match.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the core purpose and appends the scope constraint without padding. The semicolon clause is slightly compressed but every element (returned fields, access rule) earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the specific returned fields, and the annotations cover the safety profile, so an agent has enough to call this correctly. It is nearly complete, missing only failure/not-found behavior for an invalid or unauthorized matchId.

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%, but the single parameter is matchId, whose meaning is self-evident from the name and whose format is already tightly specified by the UUID pattern in the schema. The description does not add syntax or sourcing guidance beyond that, so a baseline 3 is appropriate for a single obvious identifier.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a match's onboarding progress') and enumerates the exact fields returned, which concretely separates it from generic siblings like matches_query and profile_query. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus matches_query, profile_query, or meetings_query, which overlap in subject matter. The only usage-adjacent content is an access-scoping note about participant keys, which is a constraint rather than a when-to-use rule.

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