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

With no annotations the description carries the full load, and it does explain the observable effects: the item is hidden so it is not repeated, days defaults to 7, and dismiss=true hides it permanently until a new snooze arrives. It also names the authorization scope ('Owner, office, or the worker who writes it'). What is missing is what happens when both days and until are supplied, and how to get the item back.

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 description is short and leads with the core action, but the fragments are clipped and telegraphic ('days snoozes for that many days', 'Owner, office, or the worker who writes it'), which reads as shorthand rather than as fully formed guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return values don't need to be documented. But this is a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, and the description leaves the until parameter and the precedence between days, until and dismiss undefined, so it is only partly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description has to explain all five parameters. It covers key (taken from agent.checkup), days (duration, default 7) and dismiss (permanent hide), but it never explains until or shop_id, and it doesn't say which one wins when both days and until are passed.

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 uses a concrete verb and object ('Hide one checkup suggestion so it is not repeated') and ties the tool to agent_checkup as the source of the key, which is enough to distinguish it from siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative out loud, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

It says where the key comes from ('Pass the item key from agent.checkup'), which tells the agent when the tool applies, but it never says when not to snooze, and it doesn't contrast snoozing with other ways to clear a suggestion, such as confirming or completing it.

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