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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about recency and user scoping, but it does not disclose additional behaviors like ordering, pagination, or the shape of the response.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence conveys the core action, scope, and filtering options without redundancy or extraneous detail. 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?

For a simple read-only list operation with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key invocation details: what is listed, whose data, and how to filter. It could be slightly more complete by explaining the default response ordering or what a match request contains, but nothing essential is missing for a correct basic call.

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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description needs to compensate. It does clarify that role and status are optional filters, which adds meaning beyond the enum lists, but it does not mention the limit parameter or its role in controlling result size. This is a partial compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies the verb 'Lists', the resource 'match requests', and the scope 'current LMGram user'. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_messages and request_human_match by the explicit resource type and read-only intent.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool—whenever a user needs to see their recent match requests—and mentions optional filters. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as request_human_match or start_chat, nor does it state any conditions where an alternative should be preferred.

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