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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the endpoint mapping (GET /v1/pages/{page_id}/notices) and the shape of returned fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior, default/max page size, or ordering.

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?

One front-loaded sentence covers the resource, the vocabulary mapping, and the returned fields, followed by a terse endpoint pointer. The field enumeration is somewhat long but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations beyond readOnly, the description does the necessary work by listing return fields and linking the type enum to business meaning. The remaining gap is pagination semantics, which is material for a list endpoint but not fatal.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, including the type/state enums and the include array. The description restates the same type mapping and mentions embedding, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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 a status page's notices') and immediately disambiguates the domain vocabulary: incidents map to type=unplanned and maintenance to type=planned. It also enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows this is the collection-level read rather than a single-notice fetch.

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?

Only an oblique line about 'Optional filters and embedded updates/components' hints at when to reach for this tool. It never says to use it instead of sorryapp_get_notice for a single notice, or alongside sorryapp_list_notice_updates for per-update detail, and gives no prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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