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

The description discloses key behavior beyond annotations: it requires a bearer token, creates a consent-gated pending request, and never returns private contact details. This adds meaningful context about auth, side effects, and privacy that is not present in the annotations.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence followed by a useful example. Every part earns its place and there is no redundant verbiage.

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?

The description covers behavior, auth, and privacy well, and all parameters are documented. However, with no output schema, it does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a request ID or status), leaving a minor gap for an agent that needs to interpret the response.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions already carry most meaning. The description adds a full JSON example with realistic values, which helps clarify expected shape and usage without repeating the schema.

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 states a specific action—creating a consent-gated pending request to contact an opted-in developer—and clearly identifies the resource and intent. This distinguishes it from read-only sibling tools like get_introduction_status or search_developers.

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?

It gives an explicit condition: 'Use only after the user explicitly asks to contact an opted-in developer.' This is strong when-to-use guidance, though it does not enumerate alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it.

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