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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the two-step confirm contract: the first call shares nothing and returns a confirmToken, and only confirm=true with that token performs the swap. It also documents the alreadyConnected case for repeat swaps and names the response fields (unlocks, cardShared), which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the app-equivalent analogy, then prerequisites, then the response contract, then routing. It is dense and clause-heavy in places (the unlock sentence is a run-on), but no sentence is filler.

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?

Covers the full picture an agent needs for a mutating, two-phase tool: auth requirements, ID provenance, the confirm handshake, the repeat-call outcome, and where the returned unlocks are consumed. Even though an output schema exists, the named response fields help the agent branch on results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real ordering semantics: it explains that confirmToken is the value returned by the first call and that confirm must be paired with it. That is information not present in the field descriptions, which only restate the same relationship more loosely.

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 and resource: swaps business cards between the person and a booth at their event, and anchors it to a known user action (scanning the booth's code in the app). It is clearly distinct from the sibling booth_* tools, which it names as consumers of the resulting unlocks.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites (personal connector token, a seat at the event), the source of the IDs (an events_booths row), and routes the agent onward: booth_enter_raffle, booth_claim_swag and booth_take_invite take the unlocks. It also distinguishes the two call phases, so the agent knows exactly when to make each call.

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