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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses a database INSERT and an admin push notification fired as a side effect, and states where the message text surfaces (staff dashboard). It stops short of saying whether repeat calls create duplicate rows or notify again (relevant since idempotentHint=false) or what is returned to the caller.

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 its side effects; nothing is padded. The "(max 500 chars)" parenthetical repeats the schema's maxLength constraint and is the one redundant phrase.

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 non-idempotent write with no output schema, the description does well on effects (write target, notification) but leaves required-parameter meaning and post-call behavior unexplained. An agent still lacks enough to confidently construct agent_session_id/table_id or know what a successful response looks like.

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. It explains only message (optional, human-readable, staff-visible), and even that partially duplicates the schema's maxLength=500. The two required parameters, agent_session_id and table_id, are never explained, leaving the agent to guess how to obtain and scope a session.

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?

"Flag a waiter to the table" states a specific verb and resource, and the follow-up sentence names the concrete effect (a waiter_calls row plus an admin push notification). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the close sibling request_bill, which presumably also notifies staff, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from the description alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for summoning staff for general assistance, and the optional message hints at the "why". There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of request_bill as the alternative for check requests.

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