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

The description states that muting adds to existing mutes and that 'preferences persist across reconnects and server restarts' — a persistent server-side state change — while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true (does not modify its environment). The mutating verb plus persisted state directly contradicts the read-only annotation, so this is flagged as an annotation contradiction. (idempotentHint=true is consistent with the 'adds to your existing mutes' semantics.)

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 is front-loaded, but the single dense paragraph repeats itself — exchange_fills' muted-by-default behavior is stated twice, and the 'real-time WebSocket only' scope is restated. The information is valuable but could be trimmed by roughly a third without loss.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: transport scope, persistence, the unmutable critical frames (action results, errors, deaths, trade offers, DMs), the exchange_fills edge case, and pointers to the sibling tools that handle the other cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by enumerating the full channel catalog and spelling out the exchange_fills exception (muted by default, then sent on no transport at all). session_id is not discussed, but its schema description is already sufficient.

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 (mute) and resource (notification channels) and immediately scopes it to real-time WebSocket pushes, so it cannot be confused with get_notifications polling, unmute_notifications, or subscribe_market/observation. An agent can distinguish it from every relevant sibling without opening a 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?

Explicitly names the alternatives and the conditions that select them: use get_notifications' types filter for HTTP polling, use unmute_notifications to opt in for exchange_fills, use subscribe/unsubscribe commands for market_update and observation_update, and see get_notification_settings for the channel catalog. It also states the motivating case (saving bandwidth on frames you'd discard).

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