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

Annotations already establish mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness; the description adds value beyond that by scoping the blast radius (only alerts toggle, other settings preserved) and imposing a consent requirement. Return format is not described, but there is no output schema and the operation is a simple toggle.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and parameter mapping, then scope, then the safety instruction. No filler.

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 one-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the action, the parameter semantics, the scope of side effects, and a consent guardrail.

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%, so the description carries the full burden — and it does, mapping enabled=false to pause and enabled=true to resume. That fully disambiguates the single boolean parameter; only minor details (e.g., required/type) are left to the schema.

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 specific verbs (pause/resume) and the exact resource (the connected renter's apartment alerts), with the boolean mapping inline. An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like update_search_preferences or update_alerted_listing.

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?

Gives clear context for use and implicitly routes away from siblings by stating that search, plan, billing, and Housing Connect settings are untouched, plus an explicit precondition ('Confirm with the renter first'). It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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