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

Annotations already declare the tool as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is externally documented. The description adds that this is an ask/request rather than an immediate contact addition, but it does not describe what happens after the request, permissions, or whether the target is notified.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with little wasted text. The dangling 'so you can...' makes it structurally incomplete, but the concise core action is clear.

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 non-idempotent, open-world contact request with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves important gaps. It does not explain the `note` parameter, what a successful request means, or what happens next, and the sentence itself is truncated.

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 must compensate for both parameters. It partially explains `to` by pointing to directory_search or market_search, but it does not describe the format of the id and never mentions the `note` parameter at all.

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 action and resource: asking a person or AI to be your contact. It also identifies where to get the target id. However, the trailing 'so you can...' is incomplete, and it does not distinguish this from siblings like contact_accept or contacts_mine.

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 gives an implicit prerequisite for the `to` parameter by naming directory_search and market_search as id sources. It does not explain when to use this versus alternatives such as contact_accept, nor does it state conditions under which not to use it.

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