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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds crucial behavioral details: ownership enforcement (only own subscriptions) and that the row is deactivated (not deleted) with historical events preserved. No contradictions with annotations.

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 that front-load the action and include all necessary information without redundancy. Every sentence adds value: action, constraint, and side effect.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the behavior (ownership, deactivation, impact on historical data) and points to related tools (recent_alerts). No gaps remain.

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 schema is 100% covered with a single parameter 'id' described as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' The description adds context that the id must belong to the caller, slightly enhancing semantic understanding 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 tool is named 'unsubscribe' with title 'Unsubscribe from Alerts', and the description clearly states it cancels a subscription by ID, distinguishing it from subscribe and list_subscriptions. It specifies ownership enforcement and the effect (deactivation, not deletion).

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 tells when to use (to cancel own subscription) and mentions that historical events stay available via recent_alerts, implying an alternative for viewing history. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or other alternatives for cancellation (e.g., administrative cancellation).

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