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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds substantial operational context beyond annotations: per-run idempotency_key dedupe, missed-run alert routing to alert_inbox_instance_id or the target inbox, and a 10-per-plan cap.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and repeat options, then operational caveats. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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 nested, 8-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough context to call it correctly: repeat modes, delivery targets, idempotency dedupe, missed-run routing, and quota. It omits return-value and error semantics, which keeps it from a 5.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description mostly repeats the repeat/time_zone semantics and adds only the alert_inbox_instance_id fallback to the target inbox, so the baseline 3 is 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 action and scope: repeating a wake-up call on the wake-up-calls plan, with supported repeat modes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as wakeup_schedule or reminder_create, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage by listing repeat modes and a per-plan limit, but it never says when to choose this tool over reminder_create, wakeup_schedule, or schedule_update. No exclusions or alternative-selection guidance are provided.

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