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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds that a one-time preview and candidate authorization are required, which is genuine context, but it does not explain what the confirmation tokens protect or what happens if the preview is stale.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing. No waste, though it is terse enough to leave real questions unanswered.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the prerequisite is stated. However, for a write tool with four entirely undocumented parameters and an authorization-mode enum, the description is not complete enough to call it confidently.

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 0% across 4 parameters, and the description never explains confirmationId, confirmationDigest, authorizationMode (the enum), or the const-true 'confirmed' flag. 'The exact approved question' faintly gestures at the digest, but the agent gets no meaning for any parameter from the prose.

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: 'Send the exact approved question to the named candidate' clearly identifies the action and target. It implies the prepare/confirm pairing but never names fitmeet_inquiry_prepare, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Requires the one-time preview and current candidate authorization' gives a clear precondition for calling this tool, which effectively routes the agent through the prepare step first. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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