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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description reinforces 'Read-only' while adding the non-obvious resolutionPolicy semantics (automatic items self-close and cannot be resolved via update_pulse_item). That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it stops short of describing response shape or any errors beyond the app-scoping note that the schema already carries.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the return contents, then the prerequisite call, then the subtle policy caveat. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values — and it does, listing the evidence, related ids, and proposed change. Combined with the prerequisite and policy caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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%, so both itemId and applicationId (including the MCP_APPLICATION_REQUIRED failure mode) are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the itemId prerequisite, adding no new parameter-level meaning, 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 specific verb and resource ('Return one Pulse item in full') and enumerates exactly what comes back: measured evidence, conversation/execution-log ids, and any pending Apply change. This clearly separates it from list_pulse_items, which only lists.

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?

Explicitly says to call list_pulse_items first to obtain the itemId, and routes the agent to update_pulse_item for the acknowledge/resolve distinction. Both the prerequisite and the sibling alternative are named.

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