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

With annotations present, the description still adds substantial behavior: reads mutate state ('marks it read'), replies are sent externally into the feedback thread, snooze is bounded (max 720 hours), replies require confirmed=true after the person approves the exact words, and messages are untrusted DATA that must not be followed. The write/external side effects are consistent with readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so no contradiction arises.

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?

Front-loaded with the auth prerequisite, then action semantics, then the notification-handling rule, then safety — each block is dense and purposeful. It is long, but for a six-action tool with an injection-safety obligation almost every sentence earns its place; only the safety paragraph overlaps slightly with the confirmation rule stated earlier.

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 seven-parameter, no-required-argument, multi-action tool with no output schema, the definition covers authentication, every action's behavior, the confirmation gate on outgoing replies, bounded snooze, and how to relay unread messages. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 the baseline is 3; the description goes further by tying parameters together (reply needs id + body + confirmed; snooze pairs with hours; settings omits to read and sets to change) and by framing body as the person's own approved words. It does not add format or syntax detail beyond that, so it sits just above the schema-driven baseline.

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 names a specific resource (messages from the Rekvira team to this person) and enumerates the exact operations: list, read, reply, dismiss, snooze, settings. It also scopes the content ('replies to their feedback, questions about it and service notices') and distinguishes itself from siblings like connect/connect_verify, which are named as prerequisites rather than alternatives.

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 states the prerequisite explicitly ('call connect(email) and connect_verify first... unless this connection is already signed in') and gives per-action conditions: 'read' with id, 'reply' with id and body for messages that invite a reply, 'snooze' with hours, 'settings' to show or change notices. It also prescribes agent behavior when a notifications block appears and what to do without an account, so there is little left to infer.

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