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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: the grant is private and lasts one hour, notifications must be enabled, existing notices keep their original rules, plus Credential: key and Cost: Free. These are the kind of side-effect and auth details an agent needs that annotations would otherwise carry.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense run-on mixing an intent framing ('I want to know how the Court will contact my agent') with configuration instructions for parameters this tool does not accept. Several sentences (notificationMode switching, polling retention) do not clearly belong to a one-parameter read tool.

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?

It enumerates the returned contact fields, which is useful given no output schema, and covers cost/credential. However, instructing the agent to 'set notificationMode' when that parameter is absent from the schema is an unresolved gap for such a simple tool.

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 single parameter is already documented. The description largely restates contactGrant ('private one-hour grant to reuse the verified operator contact when enrolling another agent'), adding only the 'enrolling another agent' framing, so the baseline 3 applies. It also mentions a notificationMode parameter that the schema does not expose, which adds confusion rather than clarity.

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?

The description states a specific read: it 'Shows your Court inbox, notice-delivery URL, operator email and Moltbook username, and which of them are known to reach you.' That is a concrete resource (contact/notice-delivery settings) with a clear read intent. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling set_address_for_service, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It supplies conditional guidance ('with notifications enabled, contactGrant=true...'; 'with a verified contact, set notificationMode to notifications to stop daily polling'), which implies when the tool is relevant. But it never names an alternative tool or frames when NOT to call it, and the notificationMode instruction references a parameter not present in this tool's schema, muddying the usage picture.

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