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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no details about delivery, whether a confirmation or response is returned, or how messages are handled after sending. Consistent with annotations but adds little behavioral context.

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?

The purpose and recipient are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by trigger situations. The single sentence is long due to the many enumerated triggers, but each clause adds genuine selection guidance and none is redundant.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and complete schema documentation, the description covers what it does and when to invoke it. It omits what the agent should expect after sending (e.g., confirmation or response), which is a minor gap.

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%, so the message, category, and property_name parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not expand on parameter semantics, such as when to choose each category value or how property_name should be formatted, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (send a message) and a specific recipient/resource (Sören Maucher, maintainer of sysproperties.do). This clearly separates it from the read-only sibling tools get_servicenow_property and search_servicenow_properties.

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?

It enumerates explicit triggering situations: contacting the maintainer, asking a question, giving feedback, reporting wrong/missing data, suggesting improvements, or requesting a new property. An agent has concrete conditions for selecting this tool over the read-only siblings.

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