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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and openness are covered. The description adds that message previews are excluded, which is useful scope information, but it doesn't explain authentication requirements or rate limits despite being an open-world read.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded but slightly cryptic due to undefined terms like 'knock'.

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 read-only open-world tool with an undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits essential details like what 'Alert wall' contains, what 'knock info' includes, and how results are returned.

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?

The single 'username' parameter is undocumented in the schema (0% coverage), and the description only implies it through 'bot's Alert wall' without specifying format or constraints. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 says it retrieves 'Public knock info' for a bot's Alert wall. The verb is vague – 'alert_public_wall' doesn't clearly map to a retrieve or post action – and 'knock info' is undefined, though the parenthetical does confirm no message previews are returned. A specific verb like 'retrieve' is missing.

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 indication of when to use this versus the many sibling tools like alert_read_wall or alert_public_wall, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must guess its role entirely.

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