List matches of an open request

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses that reading matches does not mark them as seen in the dashboard, and it names the required API key scope (open_requests:read), both of which affect agent behavior.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: ordering ('best first'), the non-marking behavior, and the scope requirement each earn their place. The first line merely restates the title, which is mild redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials, including result ordering and the auth scope. It stops short of describing pagination or result shape, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents request_id and even points to open_requests_create as its source. The description adds no further syntax or constraint detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 of an open request) and scopes it clearly to 'Trips ESGO has matched to one of your open requests'. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the sibling matches_search, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with.

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: you need an existing open request (and its ID from open_requests_create) to call this. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over matches_search, nor any exclusion conditions, so the agent must infer the routing.

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