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

The description discloses the key side effect ('creates pending proposals'), the privacy behavior ('identities are never revealed here'), and authentication requirements (OAuth/editToken). It adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnly=false. It does not mention the 'queued' aspect from the title, but the description is otherwise rich.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and packs in the rule, side effect, privacy, auth, and prerequisite without excess. It is slightly run-on but every part contributes value. Appropriate for the amount of context.

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 covers purpose, rule, side effect, privacy, auth, and a prerequisite, which is substantial for a tool with 3 parameters and side effects. An output schema exists, so omitting return values is fine. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and the queued behavior, but is otherwise complete.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (direction and editToken), but the description itself adds no parameter semantics. It mentions editToken only in the auth context, not its parameter usage, and completely ignores modelId and the direction enum. With modelId remaining undocumented, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'look for' with the resource 'complementary PEOPLE' and adds the rule 'agents propose, humans accept', making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'find_complementary_thinkers', despite mentioning 'identities are never revealed here' as a potential differentiator.

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 provides important prerequisites (OAuth/editToken, must have joined introductions) and workflow context (creates pending proposals for humans to decide), implying when it should be used. However, it does not name alternatives or clearly exclude other tools, especially the near-identical sibling 'find_complementary_thinkers'.

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