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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds the important precondition that only user-paused tenants are resumable and that the Groundmail-paused case must be escalated. It stops short of describing the failure mode (error vs. silent no-op) or what state the tenant returns in, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, with the second sentence devoted entirely to the blocking precondition. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, the non-obvious eligibility restriction, and the escalation path. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it is missing.

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 already explains that 'tenant' accepts either the caller's external id or the Groundmail id, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no id-format or precedence guidance beyond it, which is the baseline 3 for fully covered schemas.

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?

States a specific verb (resume) plus resource (paused tenant) and the resulting effect ('so it can send again'), which makes the inverse relationship to the sibling pause_tenant obvious. An agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not rule: tenants paused by Groundmail itself (pause_source automated or admin) cannot be resumed through this tool and the user must fix the cause and contact support. This routes the agent away from a doomed call rather than leaving it to inference.

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