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

Annotations already tell the agent this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write, so the baseline is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that profile: it doesn't say whether publishing overwrites a prior handoff, whether the peer sees it immediately, how expires_at defaults, or that credentials are required - all of which matter for a 12-param publish operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering the action, the payload, the target, and the payoff. It is tight and wastes no words, though the comma series is dense enough that it reads as a list rather than a crisp statement of intent.

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, non-idempotent publish tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose but omits the operational essentials: the prerequisite of an existing match, merge/replace semantics on repeat calls, and visibility of the published handoff to the peer. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gap is moderate rather than severe.

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% across 12 parameters, so the schema carries the parameter documentation and the baseline is 3. The description restates a few of those fields (endpoint, URLs, protocols, next action) without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb ('Share') and enumerates the resources being published (endpoint, MCP/A2A/OpenAPI URLs, protocols, next action) targeted at a match. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_handoff, which an agent could easily confuse when deciding to write vs. read the handoff.

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?

'...with a match so you can work directly' implies the context (you have a match and want to exchange connection details), but there is no explicit when-to-call, no prerequisite stated (match must exist, presumably from list_matches/swipe), and no mention of get_handoff as the read-side counterpart or of what to do if a handoff already exists.

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