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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only and not idempotent, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond them: the link is single-use with a 30-minute expiry, approval requires two factors (passkey plus live selfie with government ID), and the biometric is device-local. It does not disclose what the agent should do while waiting or how it learns approval succeeded, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the deliverable (one-time link plus validity window) before the approval mechanics. It is dense but every clause carries information; the only minor cost is that the parenthetical biometric detail crowds an otherwise tight sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly tells the agent what it produces (the link) and what the human will be asked to do. The flow is understandable for a two-parameter tool; the only missing piece is guidance on what happens after the link is issued, such as how approval status is later confirmed.

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 only two trivial parameters (agent_id, agent_token), so the schema already carries the load. The description adds nothing about these parameters, which is acceptable at full coverage but caps it at the 3 baseline.

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 names a specific verb and artifact: it issues a one-time, 30-minute approval link tied to the agent's accountable human, who then completes passkey plus government-ID verification. That is far more specific than the sibling names (qagent_enroll, qagent_verify, qagent_status) which it implicitly differs from by being the human-handoff step. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 title 'ask your human to approve you' and the phrase 'person accountable for this agent' imply the triggering situation, but the description never states when to call this versus qagent_enroll, qagent_verify, or qagent_status. No exclusions or preconditions (e.g. whether the agent must already be enrolled) are given, so the agent must infer the routing.

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