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

Annotations only say mutating/non-idempotent/open-world; the description adds the real behavioral context: read marks a message read, reply goes into the feedback thread and requires confirmed=true only after the person approves the exact words, dismiss/snooze put messages away, and unauthenticated use shows only service notices. It also discloses that the tool is untrusted-data-oriented with explicit safety rules, which no annotation conveys.

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 prose is dense and nearly every sentence carries information: auth, action semantics, surfacing rule, safety policy, anonymous-mode fallback, sibling routing. It is long but not padded. Slight deduction because the auth preamble and safety policy are interleaved rather than sectioned, making the purpose statement less front-loaded.

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 multi-action mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, per-action effects, confirmation gating, anonymous behavior and safety. It does not describe the shape of what 'list' returns (unread counts, message fields) or pagination, which an agent would otherwise have to discover.

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 schema already documents id, body, hours, action, settings and confirmed, including per-action pairings. The description mirrors this ('read with id', 'snooze (hours)', 'reply with id and body') rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so it sits at the baseline 3.

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 names a specific resource (messages from the Datailo team to this person) and enumerates concrete verbs for each action (list, read, reply, dismiss, snooze, settings), including what each does. It is clearly distinct from siblings like feedback/submit_feedback because it explicitly frames these as team replies to the person's feedback. It stops short of a one-line contrast against those siblings, hence 4 rather than 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?

Auth prerequisites are stated up front (datailo_connect/datailo_connect_verify, or already signed in), each action's condition of use is given, and the agent is told exactly when to surface messages ('when an answer carries a notifications block with unread messages... their task comes first'). It even routes to the sibling path for per-service unread messages.

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