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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it enumerates what is suspended (radar scans, digests, follow-ups, agent messages), what waits (user reminders), what is untouched (resume, vacancies, history), what happens at expiry (one search, one message), and that it is instant, reversible, and quota-free. This is exactly the behavioral context the readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and durations, then layered with effects and edge cases. Every sentence carries substantive information, though the closing 'Returns when the pause ends (null when lifted)' slightly duplicates the output schema.

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 one-parameter, reversible toggle this is complete: it covers when to use it, what changes, what does not, expiry behavior, and reversibility. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return structure, and its brief return mention only reinforces it.

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?

The description interprets the single parameter's meaning: '1, 3 or 6 months, or lift a pause (months=null)', clarifying both the allowed durations and the null-lift semantics. The schema also carries a description for months, so this is additive framing rather than the only source, but it reinforces intent cleanly.

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 (pause everything the product does autonomously, or lift a pause) with the exact durations 1/3/6 months. It distinguishes itself from sibling mutators like set_radar_auto_search and pause_coach_plan by defining the blast radius (radar scans, digests, follow-ups, agent messages) rather than one feature.

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?

Gives explicit triggering utterances ('I found a job', 'not looking right now', 'stop writing to me') and a scope exclusion ('without deleting the account'). It stops short of naming counterpart tools (e.g., set_radar_auto_search) as alternatives, so an agent must infer which sibling handles narrower filters.

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