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

With safety already covered by readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds concrete behavioral detail: it lists the exact checks performed, channel-specific truncation limits, preview behavior, and the caveat that truncation varies by device. It does not describe the output shape or severity ordering, but otherwise discloses the tool's behavior well.

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 description is front-loaded and dense with useful information; every sentence contributes to input format, behavior, or caveats. The long flag list is somewhat run-on, but it remains efficient and avoids filler.

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 two-parameter read-only checker with no output schema, the description gives enough input-format and flag-reporting context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It stops short of explicitly describing the returned structure or how issues are grouped, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning beyond the schema: it specifies the accepted channel prefixes and clarifies that channel provides the default, with push as the default. It also explains email subject/preheader and SMS whole-message semantics.

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: 'Check notification copy.' That clearly distinguishes it from broad copy review or email-only checks, though it does not explicitly route against sibling tools such as check_email_subject or check_email_preheader.

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?

The description explains how to provide input and what the tool flags, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus related sibling tools or when not to use it. Usage is only inferable from the name and the notification-specific wording.

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