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

Annotations already indicate this is an idempotent, non-destructive write operation. Beyond that, the description only restates the offer/request purpose and does not explain that it likely creates a pending exchange proposal, what happens to the offered fields, or whether the other participant must accept.

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 sentence with no wasted words and the action is front-loaded. It is under-informative rather than bloated, so conciseness itself is good.

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?

This is a four-parameter write tool in a prepare/confirm/get flow with no output schema and no schema descriptions. The description does not cover the conversation context, required tokens, confirmation requirement, or what an agent should expect after calling it.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it never explains conversationToken or conversationId. It vaguely gestures at offer/request with 'selected contact fields' and 'selected fields' but adds no meaning about allowed values, uniqueness, or minimum length beyond what the schema already enforces.

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: offering selected contact fields and requesting selected fields from the other participant. It is clear enough to distinguish from fully completing or retrieving an exchange, but it never mentions the conversation scope or that this is a preparatory step relative to confirm_contact_exchange.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus confirm_contact_exchange or get_contact_exchange, nor any prerequisites such as an active conversation. The name implies preparation, but the description does not state that a separate confirmation step is required.

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