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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden — and it delivers thoroughly. It discloses server-side execution ('fires from NudgeBell's own servers, so it still happens if this agent... is long gone'), automatic cancellation of remaining steps on acknowledgement, the account-owner-only contact restriction, and rejection of recipient requests. It even surfaces that 'the create response reports the estimate,' which matters for a cost-incurring mutation tool.

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 dense paragraphs, front-loaded with the core behavior, then step structure, then constraints. Nearly every sentence earns its place; the only minor waste is that the acknowledge-and-cancel behavior is stated in the opening sentence and re-explained in detail in the second paragraph.

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 7-parameter tool with a nested steps array, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the behavioral essentials: escalation semantics, step limits, cancellation, server persistence, and recipient/timezone constraints. The main gap is the response shape — the response estimate is only mentioned inside the channel enum description rather than in the main description — but an agent still has everything needed to invoke correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds invocation-level meaning the schema cannot express: don't pad the steps array with unrequested channels, there is no recipient field to fill, and the timezone parameter should normally be omitted. These notes actively steer agent behavior rather than restating property descriptions.

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 — 'Schedule a reminder' — and characterizes the behavior precisely: 'escalates the way the user set it and stops when they acknowledge.' The creation intent is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling set (cancel_reminder, get_reminder, pause_reminder, list_reminders), so an agent can route to this tool without opening any 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?

Provides clear usage context with exclusionary rules: 'build exactly what the user asked for, and do not add steps or channels they did not ask for,' 'there is no recipient parameter and requests that try to add one are rejected,' and 'you do not need to send a timezone.' These tell the agent when NOT to do something, which strongly shapes invocation. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools for when-to-use decisions, but the create-vs-manage split across siblings is evident.

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