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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the handoff is only a request and does not guarantee a human has joined or replied. That prevents the agent from over-promising to the customer. It is silent on idempotency (what happens if handoff is requested twice) and on what state change is visible afterward.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the important caveat and then the usage rule. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is documented in the schema. The description covers purpose, timing, and the key caveat, but omits the relationship to assign-conversation, which is the main remaining ambiguity for correct tool selection.

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?

There is a single parameter (conversation_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no format, constraint, or sourcing guidance beyond it, which matches the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 verb and resource ('Request human-agent handoff for a Chatway conversation'), which an agent can immediately distinguish from siblings like assign-conversation or send-message. The added clause that it records a request without guaranteeing a human has joined further sharpens what the tool actually does.

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 triggering conditions ('when the customer asks for a person or the request cannot be handled with the available tools') and an explicit post-condition ('after handoff, do not reply with send-message'). It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling assign-conversation, which routes to a specific agent — a relevant alternative the agent must choose between.

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