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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds the useful conditional that buyer contact is exposed only after lead acceptance. It doesn't discuss auth requirements or rate limits beyond the signed-in framing, but the access-gating detail is real added context.

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 front-loaded sentences, no filler. The default behavior is stated first, then the optional override, which is the right order for a zero-required-parameter tool.

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 return values needn't be restated, and the description still communicates the key access-gating behavior. Complete enough for a simple read tool; a bit more on when the contact is absent would make it fully airtight.

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% and the input is a single bare uuid with no description, so the description must carry it. It does explain what match_id means and the conditional return behavior, which is exactly the missing semantic — only minor gaps remain (e.g. format expectations).

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/resource: retrieves scorecard status, completion, and lead counts for the signed-in vendor. The optional match_id branch (buyer contact details once accepted) distinguishes it from siblings like my_matches and my_assessment_status.

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 the tool to the signed-in vendor and describes both call modes (no match_id = summary, match_id = per-lead contact). It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over my_matches, but the vendor-scoped framing makes the boundary inferable.

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