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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the non-automatic-contact behavior, which is a significant trait, but it omits other potential side effects, security or privacy details beyond the 'privacy-minimal' label, and what 'prepare' entails (e.g., validation, formatting, storing). The description is honest but not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the primary purpose and the key behavioral constraint. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices depth for brevity, which is a reasonable trade-off given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is minimal. It covers purpose and a behavioral trait but leaves parameter semantics, return behavior, and usage context (when vs. siblings) entirely unaddressed. An agent would likely need to consult additional documentation or guess.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters ('request' and 'protocols'), and the tool description makes no mention of them. An agent must infer the meaning of 'request' and 'protocols' solely from the schema's type and requirement. This is a critical gap; the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 clearly states the verb 'prepare' and the resource 'agent-to-agent collaboration request', and adds the 'privacy-minimal' qualifier and the key constraint 'without contacting an external agent automatically'. This distinguishes it from siblings like prepare_outbound_invitation or outbound_gateway_policy, which likely involve actual contact or policy enforcement.

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 description implicitly signals that this tool is a preparation step by noting it does not contact an external agent automatically, implying it should be used before any actual communication. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like prepare_outbound_invitation or human_bridge_request, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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