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

Annotations already mark this as a non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write, but the description adds real behavioral substance: the candidate decides and, on acceptance, the employer receives name, email and CV. That consequence disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry. The unexplained dangling reference to a `say` field slightly undercuts trust.

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, front-loaded with the action and outcome, which is good sizing. But the final sentence about `say` does not clearly earn its place since no `say` parameter exists, adding confusion rather than 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 mutation tool with no output schema, two of three parameters remain undocumented and the return value is never described. The description covers the outcome well but leaves an agent unable to understand how to populate `post` or `note`.

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?

Only `ref` is documented (33% coverage); `post` and `note` are undescribed in both schema and description. The one parameter detail the description does offer — that a summary lives in `say` — refers to something not present in the schema, so it does not compensate for 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 specific verb+resource ('Ask to be introduced to a candidate') and makes the goal obvious, letting an agent separate it from search_candidates or message_applicant. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it does not earn the top mark.

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 employer-side context is implied but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no guidance on when to choose this over message_applicant or add_contact. The agent must infer the trigger condition.

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