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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior the schema does not express: a hard score floor of 50, newest-first sort order, and that alert-delivery state is not a filter. It still omits pagination behavior despite exposing a cursor.

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 ordering and filter constraints front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 and full annotations reduce the burden, and the sort/filter disclosure is helpful. But for a four-parameter query tool with 25% schema coverage, the unexplained band taxonomy and 'since' granularity are real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 25% — just the cursor param is documented. The description never explains the band enum values (strong/possible/research), what 'since' filters on, or the limit ceiling, so the three undocumented parameters remain opaque.

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 (List) and resource (matches) with scope qualifiers: recency, score floor of 50, newest-first ordering. It doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling get_match, so an agent comparing the two gets no routing signal from the description itself.

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 phrase 'regardless of alert delivery' implies this is the browse-everything view rather than an alert inbox, which hints at usage. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of get_match as the single-item alternative, and no statement of when this tool should not be called.

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