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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is already covered. The description adds genuinely useful domain context beyond that: notolens never submits anything itself, and each item links back to its match — clarifying that these are user-driven attempts, not mutations.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource, then parameter semantics, then the pointer to get_takedown. No filler sentences and nothing repeated from the 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still adds the item→match linkage. Annotations carry the safety profile and the schema covers all three params with defaults. Only pagination behavior is left entirely to the schema, a minor gap.

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 page, state, and monitor_id with defaults and an enum. The description reinforces the default state semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (List) and resource (takedowns) and defines what a takedown actually is — 'self-guided enforcement attempts the user works against matches (notolens never submits anything itself)' — which no sibling shares. It also positions itself against get_takedown for the full timeline, so an agent can pick correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the state parameter's two buckets and which is default ('state picks the open queue (the default) or the closed history'), and points to get_takedown for detail. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., when to prefer list_matches), but the routing is clear.

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