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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the alert fires once per state change until it reverts, and it notifies other people on the sheet, which is an outward-facing side effect. That notification fan-out is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 short sentences, with the core behavior front-loaded and no padding. The first sentence is an elliptical fragment ('Whether a Glance card turning warn or bad notifies...') that takes a second read, which is the only structural flaw.

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 two-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers trigger condition, audience, firing cadence, and default state — everything needed to call it correctly. Only the permission requirements for changing a sheet-wide notification setting are unaddressed.

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 50%: trackId is documented in the schema (from list_tracks) while the boolean `on` is not. The description supplies the semantics of `on` by explaining what the alert governs and that it defaults to on, so true/false meaning is inferable, but it never states the mapping explicitly and adds nothing about trackId beyond 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?

The description names the concrete effect — a Glance card turning warn or bad notifying the people on the sheet — which is a specific behavior, not a restatement of the name. It does not differentiate this tool from related siblings such as set_glance or set_rules, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

The only usage-adjacent information is 'On by default,' which describes initial state rather than when to call the tool. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many set_* siblings, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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