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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description is consistent with that ('clear' = destructive) and adds the scope-selection semantics, but doesn't say what clearing actually does (remove from the missed list vs. delete history) or whether it is reversible.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, with the action and the two selection modes front-loaded. Nothing repeated from the title or 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?

Destructive annotations plus the schema cover safety and the secret parameter, and the description covers selection modes. Still missing: what 'clear' physically does, whether up_to is inclusive, and how the two parameters interact — meaningful gaps for an irreversible operation with no output schema.

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 only 33%: 'secret' is documented in the schema, but 'ids' and 'up_to' are bare. The description compensates by explaining that ids selects specific entries and up_to selects everything through a given id, which is exactly the missing semantics an agent needs. It doesn't clarify inclusivity of up_to or whether both may be passed together.

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 ('clear') and resource ('missed calls') and explains the two selection modes (named ids vs. everything up to an id). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling missed_calls (which lists them), though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Clear missed calls you've dealt with' gives a clear triggering condition (calls already handled), and the 'ids ... or ... up to an id' clause tells the agent which mode to pick. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g., use missed_calls to inspect first).

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