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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing server-side validation of the candidate against a live list, refusal of unknown names, and the two-phase staged call where a mismatched token sends nothing. It does not, however, say whether a raised request can be withdrawn or what the confirmed call returns, which matters for a destructiveHint=true mutation.

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 the action and the prerequisite, and every clause carries information. It is dense with long multi-clause sentences and restates the 'never invent a name' rule already in the schema, which costs some crispness.

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 6-parameter, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers the trigger, validation, refusal semantics, and the dry-run/confirm protocol. The remaining gap is the outcome of a successful confirmed call — nothing describes what the agent should report back after sending.

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; the description earns more by explaining the causal relationship between parameters — dry_run produces the payload and confirmation_token, and the confirmed call is bound to that exact payload — plus the sourcing rule for 'candidate' and the meaning of 'key' as an accepted declaration.

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 concrete verb+resource (raises a supervised engagement request for a candidate) and explicitly scopes it against everything else: 'the step that turns a match into a conversation, and which nothing else in this app can take.' An agent can distinguish it from siblings like find_matches or reply_to_exchange without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user wants to ACT on a counterparty the exchange has already shown them'), names the upstream dependency (read the name back with get_exchange_answer), and states exclusions ('it does not select, award or commit'). The alternative path for discovery (find_matches) is implied by the 'already shown them' framing.

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