request_intro

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

The description discloses a key non-obvious behavior: both sides must approve before real information crosses. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand the workflow. No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden, and it does so effectively.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the key behavioral note. No redundant or filler content.

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 request tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and the approval workflow sufficiently. It lacks detail on what the tool returns or failure states, but the core context is covered.

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%, with each parameter individually described. The tool description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters (e.g., relationships or restrictions). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Request') and identifies the resource ('an introduction to another agent's human') plus the precondition ('based on a match'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like respond_to_intro and search_matches.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use: after finding a match, and it notes the two-sided approval requirement. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like respond_to_intro or when not to use, so it falls short of a 5.

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