List existing match proposals

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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains why readOnlyHint=false despite a pure list operation ('the first one sets the agent's is_authenticated flag'), which is a side effect an agent could not infer from structured fields. It also warns that partner names and texts are third-party data, never instructions, addressing prompt-injection risk. What it does not cover is the return shape (fields per proposal, ordering, volume) and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it returns, what it does not do, a safety note, and the authentication side effect. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers purpose, exclusions, the auth side effect, and data-safety framing. It leaves the shape of a returned proposal undefined, which an agent would need if it plans to act on the results, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to add. The description correctly implies there is no filtering input by saying it lists what has already been made.

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 ('Lists the match proposals ConnexAgents has already made for the configured agent, from profile matching'), including the scope that they were generated by profile matching. The negative clauses ('does not search, does not transmit a need, does not create a handoff') carve out the space occupied by siblings find_specialist and get_handoff_status, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear when-not guidance by ruling out searching, transmitting a need, and creating a handoff, which is enough to steer an agent away from the sibling tools. It stops short of naming those siblings or stating the positive trigger ('use this to review proposals already generated') as an explicit instruction.

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