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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation; the description adds real value on top by establishing that the result is a private draft, that human review gates membership, and that certain data sources are prohibited. It still leaves persistence ambiguous (whether a draft is stored and whether re-invocation replaces or duplicates one) and never explains the significance of the context block.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the sourcing restriction, then the review gate. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 handles the policy dimensions well (source restriction, review gate, draft status), but for a tool with a large nested schema, 0% parameter documentation, and no output schema, it says nothing about how to construct offers/needs entries, what the call returns, or what the next step is after the draft is prepared. Adequate on intent, incomplete on execution.

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 0% and the schema is deeply nested, yet the description explains none of the three top-level parameters. Critically, it never clarifies the purpose of context.inferredFields (declaring which fields were inferred rather than explicitly supplied) or the referralCode — the very semantics that would let an agent fill this correctly.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Prepare a private profile draft') with a scope qualifier (private, draft, for Syncbook), which distinguishes it from a publish or preview action. It does not name the sibling it differs from (preview_profile, assess_profile_context), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Provides an explicit when-not constraint — do not pull from Claude memory, chat history, conversation summaries, or uploaded files — and requires the data come from the person's explicit supply. It gives no alternative-tool routing (e.g., when to use preview_profile or get_signup_status instead), so guidance is contextual but not ratified against siblings.

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