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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'spends no credits and changes nothing', which is the detail an agent actually cares about before a read. It adds useful behavioral context (what readiness states are surfaced, which providers are checked) but nothing about cost/pagination beyond credits.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the summary sentence and then the guardrails and next steps, with no filler. The opening sentence is long and comma-heavy, which slightly hurts scannability, but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return shape in depth is not required; the description instead gives the agent enough to decide when to call it and what to do with the result. For a zero-param read tool with full annotations, nothing material 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies. The description correctly spends no words on nonexistent inputs.

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 names the resource (the user's GetMattered account) and enumerates exactly what the payload contains: plan, token balance, applications left in the 30-day window, job preferences, readiness signals, resumes, default apply mode, and provider connections. It explicitly separates this read tool from the mutating siblings, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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 gives a concrete trigger ('Call it before applying to several jobs'), explicit exclusions ('Do not use it to change anything; use getmattered_update_job_preferences, getmattered_update_application_profile or getmattered_set_resume'), and a branching next step ('getmattered_set_resume when no resume is on file, otherwise getmattered_get_matches'). It even routes the auto-apply toggle to its own sibling.

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