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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: nothing is sent until confirm, it returns a summary plus a confirmation_token, and it requires a signed-in Printdash account with a described sign-in fallback on printdash.io. This is exactly the auth and side-effect information annotations cannot convey (destructiveHint=true alone wouldn't tell the agent the effect is deferred).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the deferred-effect guarantee, then the auth prerequisite. No redundant restatement of the title or name.

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?

Covers the two-phase flow, the return artifact needed to drive confirm, and the auth requirement, and an output schema exists so return-shape detail is unnecessary. Minor gap: no note on failure cases (invalid email, duplicate invite), but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines 'email' including the 'not the customer's own address' caveat. The description adds no parameter-level detail; baseline 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 verb+resource ('Prepares emailing someone an invitation with the customer's referral link') and immediately clarifies what it does NOT do (send), naming the sibling 'confirm' that actually sends. An agent can distinguish it from confirm and get_referral_summary without opening a schema.

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 a clear sequencing rule: call this to prepare, then call confirm after the customer agrees. Missing an explicit statement of when not to use it (e.g., if the customer hasn't signed in, or if they want a plain referral link via get_referral_summary), but the main workflow condition is explicit.

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