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

Annotations only declare the basic safety profile (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false). The description adds substantially more: login requirement, that the counterparty is notified but notification does not imply acceptance, that execution re-validates two-way visibility/blocking/status/quota, and the prohibition on auto-filling the login phone/profile.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the login gate and the preview/execute distinction, and every clause carries operational information. Slightly terse and jargon-heavy, but no filler sentences.

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?

Given 9 params, no output schema, and a two-phase consent flow, the description covers prerequisites, parameter relationships, side effects (counterparty notification), and revalidation. It never describes the response/preview payload contents, but with no output schema that omission is minor.

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?

With schema coverage at only 22%, the description carries the load and does so well: it explains activityId/organizationId mutual exclusivity and the public default, the previewHash execute handshake, consent=true, preview=false, note being self-provided, and contact/shareContactConsent rules. This meaningfully compensates for the sparse schema 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 conveys a specific verb+resource flow: sending a participant communication request via a preview-then-commit sequence, scoped by activityId/organizationId (at most one, neither = public). It does not literally name sibling tools, but the consent/preview mechanics clearly separate it from the read/scoped siblings like get_connection_request or respond_connection_request.

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?

It gives concrete usage procedure: default is preview; execution requires the same params plus previewHash, consent=true, preview=false, only after the person explicitly consents to target and reason. Prerequisites (login, explicit consent) are stated, though no explicit alternative-tool routing is offered.

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