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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — the gating of client contact data behind lead acceptance and the fact that a client account changes what the summary says. It doesn't cover error behavior for an invalid or unaccepted match_id.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the default no-parameter behavior before the match_id variant, with no filler. The final clause ('present only once the lead is accepted') is slightly awkward in placement but still meaningful.

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, return-value shape needn't be described, and the description covers both invocation modes, the acceptance gate, and the client-account variation. That is essentially everything an agent needs to call this one-parameter read tool 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% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description must carry the load — and it does, explaining that match_id switches the response to that lead's client contact and profile details, and implying it is optional. It doesn't specify format/validity expectations for the UUID or what happens on a non-matching id.

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 a specific resource ('the scorecard's status and completion, and its lead counts') scoped to 'the signed-in vendor', and explains the conditional second mode (contact details for a given match_id). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like my_matches or my_clients, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 conditional rule: call without match_id for the summary, with match_id to retrieve the client's contact/company profile, and that data is only present once the lead is accepted. What is missing is any explicit alternative-tool routing or what to do when the lead is not yet accepted.

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