run_match

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it states no side effects, enumerates what the response contains (proven matches, full proofs, refused items, exceptions), explains that records are not inlined and why, and documents pagination via match_page.next_offset and total. It even discloses that this call is not evidence of honesty.

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 key purpose is front-loaded in the first two sentences, and later paragraphs add genuinely useful behavior and warning context. It is longer than strictly necessary, with some repetition of the no-posting/no-close idea, but each section 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?

Given that the output schema exists and the description covers side-effect profile, response contents, pagination, and alternatives, the tool is largely callable in context. The main gap is the undocumented input parameters, which is reflected in the parameter-semantics score; this keeps it from a perfect completeness score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it never explicitly maps loop, source_set, limit, or offset to their meanings. "One period" hints at loop and "source files" hints at source_set, but limit/offset are left wholly to inference, and the pagination discussion is about the output cursor rather than the input parameters.

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 opening line states a specific verb ("Match"), a scoped resource ("one period"), and the deliverable ("return the proofs"), then rules out side effects with "no posting, no ledger, no log." It also names verify_proof as a sibling with a different goal, so the tool is distinguishable from the close/verify family.

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 frames the use case: "for a caller that wants to check our arithmetic rather than have us close the books." It also gives an alternative and a when-not-to-trust directive: use verify_proof to prove honesty, since run_match's own output is not that proof.

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