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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool sends notifications for immediate attention, implying urgency, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements (beyond the webhook_token parameter), error handling, or what happens on invocation (e.g., delivery confirmation). For a notification-sending tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides usage context. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys the tool's intent without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from guidelines.

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?

Given the complexity of a notification-sending tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., delivery mechanisms, error responses), does not explain the return values or what success/failure looks like, and relies solely on the input schema for parameter documentation. For a tool that performs an action with potential side effects, this is inadequate.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage nuances). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's documentation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Send a push notification using kweenkl' with the verb 'send' and resource 'push notification'. It distinguishes the action by explaining that 'kweenkl' means to send a notification, though there are no sibling tools to differentiate from. The description is specific about the tool's function but lacks explicit sibling comparison.

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?

The description provides implied usage guidelines: 'Use this to notify users about important events, updates, or information that requires immediate attention.' This gives context on when to use the tool (for notifications needing immediate attention) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, and there are no sibling tools to compare against. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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