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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it describes the expected interaction pattern (ask only unanswered questions, present options as numbered list, confirm details before submit). It also notes domain-specific applicability (financing for buyers, property condition for sellers). No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches them.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: it opens with the tool's purpose, then explains when to call it, and then gives step-by-step usage instructions. Every sentence is informative and necessary. It is not overly long given the richness of the guidance it provides.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema (which presumably details the question structure), the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent exactly what data will be returned, how to use it interactively, what to do with the answers, and when to transition to submit_match_request. No critical operational detail is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema has no properties (schema coverage 100%). With no parameters to document, the description correctly does not attempt to explain any. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for anything, so it earns the baseline score.

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 clearly states the tool returns the matching questionnaire with exact answer options and expected values, plus the version. It specifies the verb ('Returns'), the resource (the questions the matching service asks), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on retrieval vs submission or review data. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and why it differs from submit_match_request.

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 explicitly says 'Call it when the user wants to be matched with an agent' and explains the benefit of fetching questions live from the service rather than from memory. It also provides detailed instructions on how to conduct the questioning (only unanswered questions, one at a time, numbered list, financing vs property condition) and when to follow up with submit_match_request. Clear both when and how to use it.

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