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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the write-and-non-repeatable profile is covered structurally. The description adds a useful pointer to a readable summary in `say`, but does not disclose irreversibility or what agreeing commits the user to.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose first, prerequisite second, output pointer last. No filler, nothing restated from the title alone.

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 what it does, when it is required, and where the human-readable result lives, which is enough for a single-parameter acceptance call. It omits what a false value does, whether acceptance is one-way, and what happens on repeated calls, gaps the annotations only partially fill.

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?

One required boolean at 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden and only references the `say` summary field, not the `accept` flag. A boolean named accept is largely self-evident, but nothing explains what accept=false means or whether the call is reversible.

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?

Specific verb+resource: accepting employer terms, plus a prerequisite hint ('needed before introductions and hires') that frames the tool's role. No sibling tool competes for this action, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 the condition that triggers use ('before introductions and hires'), which is real when-to-use guidance linked to sibling actions like request_introduction and apply. It stops short of naming the alternatives or the when-not case.

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