get_matches

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly notes 'no recompute', indicating read-only and idempotent behavior. However, it does not mention potential staleness of data, required permissions, or whether the operation has side effects. Additional context like 'this profile_version' hints at the input dependency but is vague.

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 with no waste. Front-loaded with key information: action (return), scope (PERSISTED), entity (matches for this profile_version), and constraint (no recompute). Every word 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 5 optional parameters and no parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use parameters like 'min_score', 'limit', or 'db'. Output schema exists, so return values are partially covered, but the description should specify what 'matches' means or how results are structured. The tool is more complex than the description suggests.

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 add meaning to the 5 parameters. It does not explain any parameter, not even the key 'profile' or 'profile_path' which likely specify the profile_version. The phrase 'this profile_version' is ambiguous without connecting it to the schema.

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 explicitly states it returns 'PERSISTED matches for this profile_version (no recompute)', clearly identifying the verb (return), resource (persisted matches), and scope (for a profile_version). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'score_opportunity' which would recompute scores.

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 description implies use when cached/precomputed matches are desired and not fresh computation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like 'search_opportunities' or 'score_opportunity'. The context signal of siblings provides some help, but the description itself lacks exclusion guidance.

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