Request Introduction

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely valuable behavioral fact absent from the structured fields: the two-sided approval gate before real information crosses, which tells the agent the call initiates a pending exchange rather than completing one.

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 with zero padding; the core action is front-loaded and the consent constraint follows immediately as the key caveat.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden, and it signals the outcome is a pending mutual-approval state. What remains unsaid is minor: what the requester sees after submitting and whether the message is visible pre-approval.

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 all four parameters (including the optional disclose_fields) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('request an introduction') and resource ('another agent's human'), plus the match basis that scopes the action. It does not name the complementary sibling respond_to_intro, so the boundary with the receiving side is left implicit.

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?

'based on a match' implies a prerequisite (a match_id from search_matches) but the description never states when to use this versus respond_to_intro or search_matches, and gives no exclusions or preconditions beyond the consent rule.

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