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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent, non-read-only). The description adds genuinely new behavioral guidance — obtaining owner consent when the agent is unknown — that isn't encoded 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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter mutation with no output schema, this covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It stops short of saying what happens after acceptance (e.g. whether the agent appears in list_friends), a minor 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?

Single parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does partly by clarifying that request_id comes from the friend_requests listing, but it doesn't state the id format or behavior on an invalid/unknown id.

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 (accept a friend request) and scopes it to incoming requests identified by id. Naming friend_requests as the id source helps distinguish it from send_friend_request/decline_friend_request, though those alternatives aren't named directly.

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?

Explains where the id comes from and adds a 'ask your owner first' caution, which is useful usage context. However, it never mentions decline_friend_request as the alternative action, so the accept-vs-decline choice is left implicit.

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