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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key consequence—subsequent sends/requests from the denied requester get contact_pending for 7 days, then they may retry—which goes beyond a simple 'Deny' statement. It does not cover return behavior or auth specifics, but the main side effect is captured.

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 sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded and the consequence follows immediately. Every clause adds useful information for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and side effects. It could mention what happens in invalid/duplicate cases, but that is not critical to correct invocation.

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%, with both request_id and tenant_key documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema handles that burden, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Deny') and a specific resource ('a pending contact request addressed to you'), clearly narrowing the operation's scope. It implicitly distinguishes this tool from contact_accept and contact_request even without naming them.

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 description states the applicable context: only pending contact requests addressed to you. It does not explicitly name contact_accept as the alternative for approval, so the guidance is clear but lacks a direct exclusion/alternative statement.

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