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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope ('signed-in buyer', 'latest completed') and the boundary with my_matches, which is useful, but doesn't disclose output shape or edge cases beyond that—appropriate given output schema exists.

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 tight sentences: the first enumerates the status fields, the second draws the boundary with my_matches. Fully front-loaded, zero waste.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and with zero params the schema-side gaps are minimal. It covers scope, field meaning, and sibling differentiation completely for a status-read tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. No parameter semantics are needed and none are misleadingly implied.

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?

Names the specific resource ('latest completed PreShiftIQ assessment') and enumerates exactly what status fields are returned (results availability, review state, notified/accepted/queued counts). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling my_matches by stating 'Status only; the match list is my_matches.'

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?

Clearly scopes to the signed-in buyer and declares its boundary against my_matches, telling the agent which tool to pick for the match list. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use (e.g., before an assessment completes) but the context is clear.

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