list_matched_obligation_instances

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

With no annotations, the description minimally states the output includes score and evidence but says nothing about behavior like pagination, idempotency, or side effects. For a list operation, more detail is expected.

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 description is a single sentence, very concise, but at the expense of completeness. It is front-loaded but under-specified.

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 the lack of output schema and only two optional parameters, the description fails to explain 'matched' context, transaction reference, or how parameters affect results. It is incomplete for productive use.

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%, and the description adds no explanation of what the two optional parameters (match_type, db_path) do. The agent has no guidance on how to use them.

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 description clearly states the tool lists obligation instances matched to a transaction with score and evidence, specifying the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_unmatched_obligation_instances, but the mention of 'matched' provides necessary context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description lacks context on typical use cases or situations to avoid.

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