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

The description adds cost ($0.10) and authentication context (API key required), which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose what happens to the clarification surface after linking, whether the operation is reversible, or how failures are handled, so behavioral transparency is only partially addressed.

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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and the cost/auth caveat appended compactly. There is no wasted wording.

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 an output schema, the description is incomplete for a 5-parameter tool with low schema coverage. It misses guidance on parameter selection, clarification resolution semantics, and behavioral edge cases, leaving an agent under-informed for a reliable call.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate for the undocumented person_id, person_name, and clarification_id fields. It does not explain how those parameters relate or which identifier should be used to identify the existing person, leaving real ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Link') and a clear resource ('a clarification surface') with a target ('an existing person'), which makes the tool's job immediately identifiable. It also differentiates from sibling tools like dismiss_clarification and create_person by implying resolution through association rather than dismissal or creation.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions under which resolving via linking is preferred over dismissing a clarification or creating a person first.

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