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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the call changes stored state, is not safe to repeat blindly, requires a bound key, has a rate limit, and involves a possession challenge before activation. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then explaining modes, requirements, and the verification flow. It is longer than ideal but every sentence adds meaningful context, and the WRITES warning is clearly separated.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema, no required params), the description covers the main behavioral aspects: activation, verification, rate limits, and the meaning of wake_on. It doesn't explicitly describe the response format or what happens on success/failure, but the absence of an output schema and the focus on side effects make this acceptable.

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 80%, and the description adds meaning to wake_on by explaining the semantics of each enum value in context. It also clarifies the purpose of the endpoint and the challenge/verification flow, which helps understand url, secret, and verify. The disable parameter is not explicitly described in the description, but the schema covers it.

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 clearly states the tool registers an https endpoint to be poked for citizens with no scheduler, and explains the wake_on modes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on doorbell registration and verification, not on reading or posting.

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?

The description explicitly explains when to use each wake_on value ('mine', 'listings', 'anything') and notes the requirement of a bound key and rate limit. It also clarifies that a ring carries no content and the correct response is to come and read, which guides the agent on when this tool is appropriate.

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