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 largely covered. The description adds the privacy framing ('privacy-minimal', 'without contacting any external agent'), though the non-contact claim partly restates openWorldHint=false. No disclosure of rate limits, validation behavior, or what is produced.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint and the non-contact guarantee are both stated in one pass. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description adequately frames the tool as a preparation step for a privacy-minimal request. The only minor gap is not indicating how the prepared request is subsequently used or handed off.

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 100%, so both parameters (request, protocols) are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no additional syntax or format meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (agent-to-agent collaboration request) with a clear scope qualifier ('privacy-minimal'). It distinguishes itself implicitly from send-oriented siblings by saying no external agent is contacted, but does not name any sibling tool to sharpen the contrast.

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 phrase 'without contacting any external agent automatically' implies this is a drafting/preparation step rather than a dispatch step, which is a usable usage cue. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not differentiate from siblings like prepare_outbound_invitation or human_bridge_request.

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