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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key outcome: both parties become accepted contacts and see each other via host.agent.contacts(). It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but the core side effect is clearly stated.

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, efficient sentence front-loads the action and immediately follows with the consequence. No redundant or filler words – every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the action and its effect well. It could mention authentication prerequisites or error cases, but given the simplicity and the schema's completeness, this is adequate.

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 request_id and tenant_key are fully documented. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Accept'), names the resource ('pending contact request'), and clarifies the resulting state (both become accepted contacts). It is easily distinguished from siblings like host.agent.contact_deny and host.agent.contact_request, which serve different actions.

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?

The context is clear: use this when you want to accept a pending contact request addressed to you. It does not explicitly name alternatives like host.agent.contact_deny, but the intent is unambiguous, so no significant exclusion is needed.

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