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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value on top: this is a two-phase operation where nothing is transmitted until confirmation, and the candidate is re-validated at confirmation time (state may have changed). It stops short of explaining expiry, error, or retry behavior.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the behavioral caveat. No padding or restatement of the title.

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 not be described, and the workflow framing is adequate for a prepare/preview step. However, with four fully required, undescribed ID-and-text parameters, the definition leaves an agent guessing about what goes into each field, which is a meaningful gap for a staged write operation.

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 four required parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and largely fails. It only gestures at 'text' ('one exact question') and only implicitly hints at queryId/candidatePresentationId via 'the current people search'; requestId is never addressed, and no format or provenance guidance is given for the opaque ID patterns.

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 (prepare) and resource (one exact question) and scopes the input to 'a candidate returned by the current people search', which links it to fitmeet_people_search and separates it from fitmeet_inquiry_confirm. It is clear but never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 establishes ordering context: it must be fed a candidate from the current people search, and nothing is actually sent until a separate confirmation. That tells an agent when to reach for this tool versus the confirm step, though it does not state any exclusions or failure conditions.

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