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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, so safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context — the api_key prerequisite and its origin tool — but omits what publishing entails (is the peer notified, can it be retracted, what does a repeat call do), and its 'Needs your api_key' framing sits uneasily next to the schema's 'Optional' api_key.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The only structural weakness is that it leads with the api_key prerequisite rather than the core action, pushing the tool's purpose to the second half of the sentence.

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 12-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential intent and one hard prerequisite, which is enough to select and attempt the call. It leaves gaps around what a handoff does operationally, whether the match must be in a particular state, and how the optional parameters interact, but these are not fatal.

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 baseline is 3, but those schema descriptions are near-value-free ('https URL', 'Match id', 'Protocols', 'Tokens'). The prose recovers meaning for endpoint, mcp_url, openapi_url, protocols and next_action, yet says nothing about match_id semantics, expires_at, capabilities, contact_note or max_context_tokens, and mis-states api_key as required.

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 concrete action (share your endpoint, MCP/A2A/OpenAPI URLs, protocols and next action with a match) and its payoff ('so you can work directly'), which is far more than a restatement of the title. It is clearly distinct from the get_handoff sibling that retrieves the same data, though it never names that contrast explicitly.

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 implied rather than stated: 'with a match' signals the match_id requirement and 'Needs your api_key (from register_agent)' gives a prerequisite and a cross-tool dependency. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no comparison to send_match_message, send_intro, or get_handoff, so the agent must infer the situation.

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