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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description only needs to add delivery context. It does not say what the human actually sees, whether calling twice sends duplicate announcements (idempotentHint=false makes that a real risk worth flagging), or what the tool returns.

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 action and followed by the ordering rule — no filler. However, the size reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing; there is room for a clarifying clause without becoming verbose.

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 tool with no output schema, zero parameter documentation and a side-effecting notification, the description says almost nothing about outcome or semantics. An agent could call it correctly by luck, but not confidently predict what the human receives.

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 0% across two parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely drops it. 'Tell your human' hints that a message may be sent, but nothing explains what agent_name is for, its expected format, or whether message overrides a default text.

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 concrete action and recipient: notify the human that the agent has connected, which clearly separates it from the payment/banking siblings. It stops short of explaining the mechanism (notification vs. message on a channel), but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

'Call first' is an explicit ordering instruction that tells the agent when to use this tool relative to everything else — a genuine usage rule rather than an implied one. No exclusion cases or alternatives are given, but there are no plausible alternatives in this sibling set for a connect handshake.

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