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

Annotations already indicate mutability, idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: this is a pending request, requires owner acceptance, and must not be followed by mail before acceptance. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 definition is three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each additional sentence adds essential caveats about message type, acceptance, and pre-acceptance behavior.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, non-chat semantics, acceptance dependency, and a usage restriction. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could optionally mention pre-checking the handle with a tool like check_handle.

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 100% for both parameters, and the schema already documents 'handle' with an example and 'token' as an auth fallback. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific action ('Ask to become a contact') and clearly identifies the resource being modified. It also differentiates itself from chat tools with 'This is not a chat message' and references the acceptance flow via accept_connect, making its role among siblings unmistakable.

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 context for when to use the tool: to establish a contact pending acceptance, not to send chat or mail before acceptance. It provides a workflow constraint and a when-not direction, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as send_message as the post-acceptance option.

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