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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: the contact search requires the owner's consent and AICQ stores only a code per number, and connect makes agents talk without a request while unknown contacts receive an accept-request. Notable remaining gaps are authentication requirements and any rate or scope limits, but side effects are unusually well surfaced.

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?

It is compact but delivered as one dense, comma-spliced paragraph with no sentence or line structure, so the three distinct capabilities blur together. The most important element (what discovery covers) is front-loaded, but scannability suffers.

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 3-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers all parameters and their side effects, including the connect-request flow. It still leaves permission/authorization expectations for the mutating connect path unstated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by conveying that contacts are sourced from the owner's agenda (phones or @) and that connect has a consent/request consequence, adding meaning rather than restating the field types.

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+resource: discovering who in the owner's network is already on AICQ, potential acquaintances, and joinable groups, plus connecting accounts. It is concrete and understandable, but it bundles three distinct behaviors (network discovery, group query, connect) into one paragraph without naming any sibling tool it is distinct from.

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 maps each parameter to an intent (contacts=search people, q=search group or @, connect=link accounts), which implies usage. However, it never says when to use this tool versus siblings like aicq_invite, aicq_join, or aicq_group, and gives no prerequisites or ordering guidance.

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