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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful behaviors: the mutual-consent gating of contact sharing and the return of a private token_pembeli. It omits auth requirements, what happens on seller refusal, and the meaning of the mandatory setuju_syarat flag.

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 with no padding; the purpose is front-loaded and the consent condition plus return value follow in order of usefulness.

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 5-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers only purpose and one behavioral trait. It leaves the three undocumented parameters, the terms-agreement requirement, and the failure path to the agent's imagination.

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% across 5 parameters, and the description only weakly implies penawaran_id (the listing) and kontak (your contact). The required setuju_syarat and the optional kebutuhan and siapa_kamu are entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 ('introduce you to the seller of a listing') and names the actor (OCKLU), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, contrast itself with the closely related sibling setujui_jodoh or cek_jodoh, so the agent must infer the distinction from the matching-flow vocabulary.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement and no exclusions. The description conveys the outcome condition (contact shared only after the seller agrees) but never tells the agent when this tool is the right choice versus setujui_jodoh, cek_jodoh, or sampaikan_kebutuhan.

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