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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a request requiring owner acceptance and warns not to follow up by mail before acceptance. However, it does not describe what the call returns, whether the request is persisted/visible, or what happens on rejection.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence carries information: purpose, non-message clarification, acceptance requirement, and sequencing rule. No wasted words.

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 tool is simple, but with no output schema the agent still lacks explicit knowledge of the response/return state after calling request_connect. The workflow is conveyed well, but missing response/error behavior keeps this from being 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 documents only the handle parameter with an example; the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The optional token is entirely unexplained, and the description's contact/owner wording only weakly maps to handle. Since schema coverage is only 50% and the description does not compensate, this is a 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?

States the operation directly: 'Ask to become a contact.' It also distinguishes itself from chat tools ('This is not a chat message') and names the accepting counterpart, so it is immediately differentiable from accept_connect/reject_connect and send_message.

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 gives clear behavioral context: this is a request rather than a chat, the owner must accept it, and mail should only happen after acceptance. It does not explicitly enumerate sibling alternatives, but the exclusion of chat and the acceptance workflow provide solid guidance.

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