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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent write but say nothing about the human flow. The description adds what happens on write ('Kindora records the request and emails the person a link. It returns no link'), the six-digit email confirmation, that the person starts introductions themselves, that nobody browses the profile, and that Kindora uses nothing until they act. This is substantive disclosure beyond the safety annotations, and it does not contradict them.

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?

Purpose and the sibling distinction are front-loaded, and the approval gate is stated plainly. It is long, and parts (the enumerated profile fields, the asks description) repeat the nested schema's own description, but nearly every sentence carries workflow or messaging instruction that an agent needs. Slight redundancy keeps it from a 5.

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 nested-object, human-approval-gated write tool this covers the full pipeline: brief authoring, consent step, email-code confirmation, and post-signup behavior. It also supplies messaging guidance ('Kindora Connect calls this "About you", never a profile; use those words with the person'). With an output schema present, no return-value explanation is required, so nothing needed is missing.

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, but the description goes further: it names the profile fields to include, singles out `asks` as 'the most useful field' with concrete guidance on what belongs in it (up to three one-liners, problem/peer/funding), and explains the approval meaning of person_approved_sending. This adds real semantic value over the schema, though the field list is partially a restatement of the covered properties.

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+scope ('Set up a PERSON's Kindora Connect profile') and characterizes the underlying capability (one-to-one introductions). Crucially, it names the sibling it is not and the condition that selects the sibling ('For an organization's funder search, use start_kindora_profile'), so an agent can disambiguate without opening either 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 the trigger ('when the person asks for that'), the alternative tool for the org case, and the full approval gate ('show the person the whole brief... ask whether to send it. Call only after they say yes, with person_approved_sending set to true'). Both when-to-use and the when-not are explicit.

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