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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-safe profile is covered. The description adds little beyond the name: it does not say whether this queues a request, pings a human immediately, is asynchronous, or what the caller should expect after the call.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than crispness.

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 3-parameter escalation tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers the ordering dependency. What is missing is description-level disclosure of the workflow prerequisite and what the notification actually triggers.

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%, and the contactId description carries the full prerequisite and anti-hallucination guidance, so the schema does all the work. The description itself contributes no parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Send a request to notify') with a specific target ('an agent') and states the intent ('that the user requires attention'), which is far more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish this from the closely related sibling send_contact_info, which an agent might plausibly confuse it with.

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 phrase 'the user requires attention' implies a trigger condition (a live escalation need) but never states when to use this instead of alternatives, nor any exclusions. The critical prerequisite — that contactId must come from a prior send_contact_info call — appears only in the schema, not in the description.

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