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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds that the result is usually empty, ordered newest first, and each item has specific fields (id, level, title, etc.). No contradictions with 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?

Two concise sentences: first covers purpose and content, second adds usage guidance and field details. No fluff, every sentence earns its place.

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, the description still provides essential context (ordering, emptiness, fields). For a zero-parameter read-only tool, all needed information is included.

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 has zero parameters, so baseline is 3. Description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as there are none to describe.

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 returns 'active platform-wide system notifications' (admin-published broadcasts), lists examples like scheduled-downtime notices, and specifies ordering ('newest first'). This distinguishes it from user-specific notification tools like colony_get_notifications.

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 explicitly advises 'worth an occasional check, not a tight poll', providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. While no alternative tool is named, the context implies it's distinct from other notification tools.

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