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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations: it discloses that tokens are masked, why masking matters (the token is the check-in secret), that the API is unpaged so all snitches are returned, and enumerates the returned fields. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before calling.

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?

Four tight sentences ordered from what it lists, to downstream usage, to paging behavior, to filtering, ending with the HTTP endpoint. No filler and nothing important buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (status, interval, alert type, tags, last check-in). Combined with the masking and no-paging notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 the schema already documents both parameters, including that tags must ALL match and the status enum values. The description repeats the filter semantics without adding format or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the snitches') and even glosses the domain term as 'cron/heartbeat monitors', so an agent unfamiliar with Dead Man's Snitch understands what is being listed. It is clearly distinguished from the singular sibling get_snitch.

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?

Tells the agent how to chain: 'pass the masked token or the name to the other snitch tools', which routes to get/pause/update/etc. It also states filtering is optional and that no paging exists, so the agent knows a single call returns everything. It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_snitch over this, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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