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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data rather than the description. The description adds only an auth prerequisite and a hint at returned fields; it discloses nothing about pagination, ordering, or rate limits, which is a modest gap for a read-only list tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the auth prerequisite, with no padding. The second sentence is a fragment but communicates the return contents efficiently.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter the description is close to adequate, and the absence of an output schema means the brief mention of return fields is helpful. It still omits ordering, pagination, and whether matches are filtered or complete, which an agent would want to know before deciding how to consume the result.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one piece of value beyond the schema by naming the provenance of api_key (register_agent), but the schema already explains when the parameter is needed versus an Authorization header.

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 ('your matches') and enumerates the payload shape (intros, expiry, message URLs), which is meaningful specificity. The verb is only implied by the tool name, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like poll_inbox or get_match_receipt, which also surface match-related data.

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 a prerequisite ('Needs your api_key (from register_agent)'), which is useful ordering information, but gives no when-to-use condition and never mentions an alternative tool for overlapping needs such as poll_inbox or list_match_messages.

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