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

The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations by noting that the server verifies device support for the complete Handoff action before creating anything. This implies a precondition and clarifies that no object is created if the verification fails. The annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description enriches that context without contradicting it.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a meaningful behavioral guarantee in the second sentence. Every word earns its place, and it is not padded with redundant information that already exists in 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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description provides the essential purpose and a key precondition. The output schema covers return values, and the annotations provide safety hints. The main omission is lack of explicit routing guidance among sibling tools, but that is partially covered by the purpose statement.

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 high (90%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond rephrasing the kind distinction (acknowledgement vs. question). Per the baseline rule, this is adequate, but the description does not significantly compensate for any parameter ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Hand work to exactly one human" as either an acknowledgement or a tappable question. It also conveys the constraint of exactly one recipient, which helps differentiate it from broadcast and room-based siblings. This is more specific than the title alone and clearly identifies what the tool creates.

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 implies usage for one-to-one handoffs requiring acknowledgement or a question, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like ask_question or broadcast. The phrase "exactly one human" provides a hint, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives.

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