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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds the single most important behavioral fact: preparing a handoff does not contact anyone, which pre-empts a likely false assumption from the word 'human' in the name.

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 sentence with the tool's scope front-loaded and the sibling references compressed into a parenthetical. No filler and nothing an agent must read twice.

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 only two well-described parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. The only minor gap is that 'prepare' is never concretized into a visible artifact, but the output schema plausibly carries that.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the note that `authorization` does not itself grant authority. The description only echoes 'bounded request' and adds no format or content guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('human review/approval handoff') scoped to 'a bounded request', which is far more precise than the title alone. It also immediately differentiates itself from the two siblings that presumably do the actual contacting.

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 clause 'contacts nobody (see agent_collaboration_request, prepare_outbound_invitation)' routes the agent to the right alternatives when actual outreach is needed. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, but the practical selection signal is clear.

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