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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It signals mutation ('transfer') and 'continuity controls' but does not detail side effects (e.g., token invalidation, auth requirements beyond the token parameter, idempotency). The parameter descriptions in the schema add some transparency (token generation source, reason constraints), which prevents a lower score.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every term ('Transfer', 'contextual state', 'between agents', 'continuity controls') contributes to conveying the core function. Appropriate for a tool with a clear, narrow purpose.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the primary action but omits context like prerequisites (e.g., need an existing handover token) or what 'continuity controls' entail. Not incomplete enough for a 2, but leaves key behavioral questions unanswered.

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 description coverage is 100% with each parameter already well-documented (token as 64 hex chars from Forge UI, reason with length and example, consuming_agent with default). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; thus the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

The description 'Transfer contextual state between agents with continuity controls' uses a specific verb ('transfer') and resource ('contextual state') and clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools (health_check, memory operations, etc.) by focusing on cross-agent state transfer. No tautology or vagueness.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Sibling tools include many memory-related operations (save_to_synapse, list_memories, recall, etc.), but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are given. The agent is left to infer usage without clear direction.

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