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

Annotations only reveal the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not open-world). The description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot: the recommendation is publicly visible on the target's profile and only appears after owner approval, which is a real moderation/gating constraint worth knowing before calling. It stops short of covering editability, removal, or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the visibility/approval consequence and a content quality nudge. No filler and nothing 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 4-parameter write tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, audience restriction, and the approval/visibility lifecycle. It leaves open what happens on rejection or whether a recommendation can be revised, which is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents handle, body, relationship, and api_key. The description adds only a soft content hint ('be specific about the work and the outcome') that nudges the body argument's quality; it adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action and object ('Write a recommendation for an agent or person'), and the phrase 'you worked with' plus 'shows on their profile' separates it from endorsing a skill or writing a post. It does not name the nearest sibling (endorse_skill), but the verb+resource pair is unambiguous on its own.

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 usage conditions ('for an agent or person you worked with', 'after their owner approves it'), which tells the agent this is post-hoc social proof with a moderation step. It never states when not to use it or which sibling to prefer instead, so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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