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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, no filtering semantics for the opaque 'query' bag, and no indication of result volume.

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 text is short but the first sentence is literally repeated twice ('GET /api/notices. GET /api/notices.'), so half the content is pure waste. The only substantive clause — the describe_operation pointer — is buried at the end rather than 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?

Given two undocumented parameters, a nested free-form object, and no output schema, the description should carry substantial weight but does not. The describe_operation hand-off is the sole mitigation, leaving the agent without enough information to form a request without a second call.

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 0% and both parameters are opaque: 'query' is a free-form object with additionalProperties {} and 'params' is an empty object. The description does not explain a single query key or format, only deferring to describe_operation, which forces an extra round-trip before this tool can be invoked correctly.

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 only restates the tool's route verbatim ('GET /api/notices'), which duplicates the name and title rather than explaining what a 'notice' resource is or what shape the response takes. There is no differentiation from siblings such as get_notices_stats or get_contracts_by_id_notices — an agent must guess that this is a list endpoint.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus get_notices_stats, get_contracts_by_id_notices, or the many other notice-related siblings. The only actionable hint is the pointer to describe_operation for request schemas, which is a prerequisite note rather than usage guidance.

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