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

Annotations confirm read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds crucial business-logic context: masking rules, contact visibility only upon vendor acceptance, score ordering, and no pricing. This goes well beyond annotations and is highly informative.

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 tightly packed sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add key behavioral details. No waste, every clause 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?

Given the single optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers purpose, usage, and crucial side-effects (masking, contact visibility, pricing). It's complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that assessment_id selects a specific assessment (default is latest completed), adding meaning beyond the schema's bare type. However, it doesn't clarify format (UUID) or edge cases like invalid IDs.

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 (retrieves), resource (notified matches), and scope (for the signed-in buyer, latest completed or named assessment). Clearly distinguished from siblings like start_assessment or my_assessment_status by focusing on match results.

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?

Implies usage for signed-in buyers retrieving matches. Names the condition for specifying assessment_id ('or of the assessment named by assessment_id'). Doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but context is clear.

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