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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses immutability ('Decisions are immutable'), deletion on decline ('deletes anything provided'), dual-consent sealing ('stays sealed until BOTH humans consent'), and non-disclosure ('the counterparty never learns who declined'). It also calls out the 14-day window and the 'always free' status action, which is strong behavioral disclosure.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: workflow position, per-action behavior, data lifecycle, immutability, timeout, and consent warning are all packed densely but readbly. The key context is front-loaded ('After MUTUAL_AFFINITY: the human-consent step'), and the warning about human consent is placed prominently at the end.

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?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description is behaviorally complete: it defines the state machine, data-handling rules, consent requirements, and timing constraints well enough to invoke any action correctly. It does not spell out the exact response object, but the described outcomes ('shows where things stand', 'each side receives the other's', 'ends it neutrally') provide sufficient agent guidance.

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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is satisfied, and the description adds meaningful context by explaining the semantics of each action and reinforcing that 'contact' is the only place contact details may be shared. It does not enrich the undocumented required parameter 'rendezvous_id', but this is a minor gap given the high schema coverage and the strong description.

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 opens by locating the tool in the workflow ('After MUTUAL_AFFINITY: the human-consent step') and then enumerates the exact actions: 'status', 'accept', and 'decline'. This gives a specific resource and behavior while distinguishing the tool from discovery, messaging, and withdrawal siblings. An agent can understand what the tool is for without opening the 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?

It states the trigger condition ('After MUTUAL_AFFINITY'), the prerequisite ('Ask your human first'), and a hard exclusion ('mutual agent affinity is not human consent'). It also provides timing constraints ('window closes after 14 days') and a scope restriction ('the only place contact details are allowed'). This is clear when-to-use guidance even though it does not name an alternative sibling.

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