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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: only matches scoring 50+ are returned, and the result is independent of whether alerts were delivered — both non-obvious and relevant to interpreting an empty 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 dense sentence with the resource and the key filtering constraint front-loaded. 'Regardless of alert delivery' is slightly opaque without surrounding context, but no clause is wasted.

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 need no prose, and annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with the score threshold and alert-independence notes, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly; only the 'id' meaning is left implicit.

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?

One required parameter ('id') with 0% schema description coverage; the description never mentions it, so an agent must infer from the tool name that it is a match id and not, say, a product or destination id. The inference is natural but undocumented.

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 and resource ('Get one match') and goes further by describing what comes back: the score, its reason, and per-destination results. The singular 'one match' implicitly separates it from list_matches without naming the sibling, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: fetching a single match by id versus enumerating with list_matches. The 'score of 50 or above' qualifier hints at when this returns nothing useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative.

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