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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: login requirement, confirmation requirement, no_contact_info fallback, snapshot retention after consent, idempotency for repeated self-requests, and the already_exchanged no-retry rule. These details align with the annotations rather than contradicting them.

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 well structured: login and confirmation are front-loaded, followed by preconditions, state-specific handling, and the composition chain. Every clause carries operational meaning.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, confirmation, error-code handling, idempotency, snapshot behavior, sibling routing, and the recommended composition chain. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 single parameter conversationId has 100% schema description coverage, including the constraint that it must be a 1-1 conversation. The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 action: send a contact-exchange request via real-person DM, with an explicit confirmation step. It also distinguishes the operation from respond_contact_exchange and get_contact_exchange_state by naming when to use those siblings instead.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: login is required, the user must confirm first, and the requester needs at least one contact method or must use add_profile_link. It also covers retry behavior and routes peer_request_pending to respond_contact_exchange.

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