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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false) it discloses what actually happens: nothing is created until the recipient claims it, the caller loses access once claimed, the call is refused when the email matches the user's own, and links expire after 14 days. That is exactly the mutation/consequence context annotations cannot convey.

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 two returned links, then when-to-use, then safety constraints — a sensible ordering. It is a single dense paragraph that runs long, and the parenthetical enumerations of editable items are slightly padded, but nearly every clause carries operational information.

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 9-parameter tool with a deeply nested blueprint and no output schema, the description explains the returned artifacts (previewUrl, manageUrl, plus signupUrl/receiveUrl), their access model, and expiry — the critical gaps are closed. Remaining shortfall is that several optional top-level parameters are never explained.

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?

With only 44% schema coverage, the description carries real weight: it tells the agent to pass the other person's name and email as given, to reuse prepareSignup's intent and blueprint shape, and to include missions with hours and ratePerHour so the recipient can tweak immediately. It leaves lang, wishText, aboutText, and countries unaddressed, so it doesn't fully close the coverage gap.

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 and resource ("Prepare a rikma on 1lev1 for ANOTHER person") with an explicit scope contrast against the user's own case. It immediately names the sibling it is not (proposeRikmaBlueprint) and distinguishes itself from prepareSignup by reference, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use triggers (a member markets 1lev1 and sets up a new customer's business, or helps another member get started), an explicit when-NOT ("NEVER use it for the user themselves... use proposeRikmaBlueprint"), and an ambiguity rule ("If it is not clear who the rikma is for, ask before calling").

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