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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that capability.repair.started entries with repair_bounty_id and public_at are surfaced, but says nothing about read-only safety, whether reads are idempotent, auth requirements beyond the schema keys, or return shape.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, with no filler. The second sentence is somewhat tangential but still compact.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the read semantics, auth expectations, and what fields are returned. It gestures at entry types but leaves the operational picture incomplete, and the supplier-agent sentence adds confusion rather than completeness.

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% for both api_key and agent_key, so the schema already explains the parameters and the description adds nothing about them. Baseline 3 applies when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 ('Read price-change notices') with scope ('for capabilities this buyer called recently'), which is clear enough to distinguish from generic notice tools like agent_notices. However, the second sentence switches audience to 'a supplier agent' and to a different entry type (capability.repair.started), muddying whether this tool is buyer-facing or supplier-facing.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance versus the many notice-adjacent siblings (agent_notices, agent_notices_ack, capability_get). The only implicit cue is 'capabilities this buyer called recently', which hints at context but does not tell the agent when to prefer this over alternatives or whether acknowledgement is needed.

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