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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing the state transition: the notification is hidden and later returns unread at the top of the bell, telling the agent the effect is reversible and where it resurfaces.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the observable outcome. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose and post-action behavior adequately. It could mention the relationship to un-snoozing or mark_notification_read, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%: the schema documents both notificationId ("The id from list_notifications") and minutes (default 60, max a week). The description only gestures at duration with "for a while" and adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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 (hide/snooze) and resource (notification), plus the effect: it reappears unread at the top of the bell. This clearly separates it from siblings like snooze_conversation, mark_notification_read, and list_notifications without needing to open a schema.

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 the use case (temporarily suppress a notification you don't want to act on now) but never states when to choose this over mark_notification_read, dismiss, or snooze_conversation, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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