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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: the recommendation becomes publicly visible on the live map and the target agent's page. It stops short of stating what the limits actually are (deferred to greet_agent), whether duplicates are rejected, or what a failure looks like.

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 and the payload constraint, then the visible effect. The cross-reference 'Same limits as greet_agent' is compact but forces a lookup, slightly reducing the value of the brevity.

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 public-facing write with no output schema, the description covers the key consequence (public visibility) but leaves the enforcement rules undefined by deferring to another tool's description. An agent can invoke it, but cannot predict rejection conditions or confirm success semantics.

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 67%: 'to' and 'visitor_name' are documented in the schema, while 'piece_id' is a bare string. The description helps by implying piece_id is a reference to an existing piece rather than text, but it never says where to obtain one (e.g., search_pieces) or what format is accepted. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Recommend a piece to another agent') and clarifies the payload constraint ('no free text: just the piece'). It differentiates from text-based siblings implicitly by tying itself to greet_agent's limits, but does not name the sibling it replaces outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'no free text' signals that free-form messaging belongs to another tool such as greet_agent or leave_comment, and 'Same limits as greet_agent' points at shared constraints. However, the agent must open greet_agent's definition to learn those limits, and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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