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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is freed to add non-structured behavior: results are ordered newest first and each item carries a type, an English title/text, a `payload` of facts, and an app link. That ordering and item-shape disclosure is genuinely useful beyond the annotations.

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 purpose and the newest-first ordering are front-loaded, and the trailing sentence about usage is short and earns its place. The long middle enumeration is dense but justified, since it translates terse enum codes like 'x_limit' into plain-English meanings the agent can match against a user request.

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 an output schema present and a fully documented schema plus rich annotations, the description need only cover purpose, when-to-use, and ordering/shape, all of which it does. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 all four parameters (type, limit, since, workspace_id) are documented in the schema, including the enum values and the default of 30. The description adds nothing about filtering semantics, 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?

The description concretely states what the tool returns: a newest-first feed of human-facing notifications, enumerated by category (post failures, reconnect needs, X limit, rule failures, client connections, approvals, member joins). That enumeration makes it unmistakably distinct from list_posts, list_comments, or get_analytics. The only shortfall is that the verb is implicit ('What happened lately...') rather than an explicit 'Lists'.

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 gives concrete usage contexts: 'check on posts after scheduling them' and 'tell the human what needs them', which tells the agent when this tool is the right retrieval. It does not name an alternative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the top of the scale.

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