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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the concrete consequences: an auth gate (techjobs.vn sign-in plus verified referrer account) and the fact that the request becomes visible to every referrer at the company, not just the caller. It stops short of saying whether the action can be undone or whether the request can be re-claimed, which is the remaining gap.

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, no filler, each doing distinct work (prerequisites, effect, then routing to alternatives). The ordering puts auth prerequisites ahead of the action, which is slightly less front-loaded than leading with the effect, but nothing is wasted.

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 so return values need no explanation, and the description covers prerequisites, the state change, and the alternative. For a destructive single-parameter mutation this is nearly complete, missing only reversibility and whether the candidate is notified.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries a description pointing at list_referrer_requests as the source of the id. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so 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 concrete verb and effect: gives a claimed request 'back to the open pool for every referrer at the company.' The resource and the scope of the state change are both explicit, and the contrast with decline_referral_request makes it separable from the nearest sibling.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when a colleague could refer instead') and an explicit named alternative with its own condition ('use decline_referral_request when the candidate is not a fit'). The routing decision between the two tools is fully specified.

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