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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the shape of a suggestion (score, reason, contact, deep link), but an output schema exists, making that detail largely redundant rather than additive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and followed by the return shape; nothing is wasted. The second sentence restates what the output schema already defines, which is the only minor redundancy.

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?

Rich annotations plus an output schema and a fully documented single parameter mean the description only needs to cover the trigger and the nature of the results, which it does. Missing differentiation from 'agent.actions.next' is the one real gap.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('Max actions, 1 to 20 (default 10)'). The description adds nothing about 'limit' or default behavior, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns no credit above the 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?

States a specific verb+resource: a ranked list of relationship actions, with concrete examples (reconnect, birthday, overdue tasks). An agent knows exactly what comes back. It never differentiates from the obvious sibling 'agent.actions.next', so it stops short of a 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?

Gives a clear trigger condition ('when the user wants a ranked list of relationship actions') backed by three example intents, which is enough to route the call. No exclusions and no named alternative, so it does not reach the explicit when/when-not/alternatives bar of a 5.

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