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

The description adds rich behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the reason is shared with the counterpart and their organizer, that no proxy or hidden relay is allowed, that preview confirmation is default, and that there is no reply guarantee or automatic SMS. These details go well beyond the safety profile already given by readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false.

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 dense but front-loads the login requirement and key constraints, then walks through the preview-confirmation sequence with minimal waste. Some chained punctuation and the compact previewHash instruction keep it from being a model of clarity.

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 write tool with five parameters, no parameter descriptions in the schema, and no output schema, the definition covers the essential invocation protocol, disclosure scope, and post-request expectations. It still omits explicit conversationId semantics and the created request's return shape, leaving minor gaps.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description meaningfully compensates by explaining that reason must come from the user, consent must be true, preview defaults to true, and confirmation uses the same parameters plus previewHash with preview=false. conversationId is only implied by the two-person-conversation constraint, and length/format constraints are not restated, so it is not fully complete.

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 conveys that this submits a contact request through the counterpart's organization organizer, noting the reason will be given to both the counterpart and their organizer. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_quick_contact_context or update_quick_contact_request, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 states clear preconditions: login required, only for the caller's existing two-person conversation, reason must be user-provided, and consent must be true. It also explains the preview-first flow, but it does not state when to choose this tool over related contact or request tools.

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