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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses that the tool writes to Inclusify configuration, never to the site itself, and posts nothing to Slack. It explains confirmation requirements for turning alerts off or raising the threshold, and the PRO plan requirement. This adds substantial behavioral context the annotations alone do not 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?

The description is longer than a simple one-liner, but every sentence contributes information: purpose, use cases, side-effect scope, prerequisite, confirmation semantics, and plan requirement. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly verbose around 'matching the panel' but overall appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 7 parameters, a confirmation flow, and a prerequisite, the description covers all essential operational aspects: what it does, when to use it, the prerequisite, the side-effect boundary, confirmation rules, and required plan. No output schema exists, but the confirm parameter in the schema documents the preview/token flow, so no critical information is missing.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds useful semantic grouping ('Four independent switches plus a threshold, all optional') and explains leave-out behavior ('anything you leave out stays as it is'), which goes beyond the individual property descriptions. The confirmation parameter's dual preview/apply behavior is also contextualized.

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 action: deciding which kinds of accessibility findings get announced to Slack, and explicitly distinguishes itself from channel selection ('once a channel is already chosen'). It also contrasts with set_slack_channel by referencing that prerequisite, making sibling differentiation clear.

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 gives concrete use cases: 'quieten somewhere noisy' or 'switch on something a team keeps missing'. It also names the prerequisite and alternative tool (set_slack_channel) and states the refusal behavior until that is done, so an agent knows exactly when and in what order to use this tool.

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