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

Annotations already state read-only and closed-world behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond them: newest-first ordering, Free-plan filtering to pending pushes, and absence of delivery logs. It does not cover pagination behavior or limits, but it adds real behavioral information.

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 no filler, and the newest-first ordering is front-loaded. The Free-plan caveat follows efficiently.

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 simple read-only list tool, the description covers ordering and plan-based filtering. With no output schema, however, it leaves return shape, pagination response behavior, and default page size unstated, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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?

The description says nothing about the limit or before parameters. The schema documents before and gives constraints for limit, but coverage is only 50%, the default limit is not specified, and the description does not compensate for the gaps.

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 identifies the resource (pushes) and ordering (newest first), making it clear this is a listing tool rather than get_push or send_push. It stops short of an explicit 'list all pushes' verb and does not name sibling tools, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 description gives a Free-plan output caveat but no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_push, cancel_push, or other siblings. Usage is implied by the tool name/title rather than stated.

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