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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 160-character limit, but does not mention side effects, permissions, error behavior, or what happens if the limit is exceeded. This is insufficient for a mutating send operation.

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 core description sentence is duplicated verbatim, wasting space and making the structure redundant. While the parameter docs are useful, the unnecessary repetition hurts conciseness.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, the character limit, and all parameters, which is adequate for a simple send operation. An output schema also exists, so the vague '@return: a json object' is not critical. However, it lacks behavioral details like what happens with overlong messages and does not mention any preconditions.

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 provides explicit @param documentation for all five parameters, explaining api_key, token, wallet_fk, message, and title. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds meaningful context beyond the raw type definitions.

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 clearly states the action ('Sends a push message to customer') and identifies the resource (push message). It is specific and understandable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like send_email or send_sms.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative context with sibling tools.

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