match_three_way_get

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by emphasizing that the evaluation snapshot is the exact stored numbers shown when the match was accepted, indicating it is historical rather than recomputed. It doesn't cover errors, freshness, or authorization, but it goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that names the operation, the resource, and the returned sections. Every clause adds meaning and there is no filler.

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 simple read operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back: header, rows, and snapshot. It doesn't spell out parameter semantics or fail states, but the structure is simple enough that this does not feel incomplete.

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 carries the burden of explaining matchId and workspaceId. It never mentions which identifier selects the match or how the workspace scopes the lookup; only the readable parameter names make it guessable. With zero schema descriptions, this is a real gap.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a well-defined resource ('one persisted three-way match'), then enumerates what is returned: header, per-PO-line rows, and stored evaluation snapshot. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like match_three_way_list and match_three_way_evaluate without needing to open their schemas.

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 context: this is for retrieving a single already-accepted, persisted match and its historical evaluation snapshot, implying the agent should use list/evaluate siblings for those other purposes. It does not name alternatives explicitly or state when not to use it, but the singular and 'persisted' wording makes the scope obvious.

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