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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so irreversibility is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context: sign-in plus a verified referrer account are prerequisites, and the candidate is notified by email with the reason. It stops short of saying whether the decline can be reversed or what state the request ends in.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. Minor structural flaw: the auth prerequisite leads instead of the purpose, so the first thing the agent reads is a constraint rather than what the tool does.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description only needs to supply prerequisites, side effects and sibling routing — which it does. Missing is any note on post-decline request state or whether a released/claimed request can still be declined.

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%, so both request_id and decline_reason are already documented, including the 300-character limit. The description's 'with the reason if one is given' confirms decline_reason is optional and surfaces to the candidate, but that meaning is already in the schema. 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 and resource ('Declines a request') plus the operative condition ('because the candidate is not a fit'), and explicitly names the two siblings it must not be confused with. An agent can route to it without opening the 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 explicit alternatives with the conditions that select them: request_cv_changes when only the CV is weak, report_referral_request for spam. This is exactly the discrimination an agent needs in a 40+ sibling tool set.

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