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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds 'newest first' ordering and output fields (id, level, title, body, published_at). This is useful but not essential beyond what schema/annotations indicate.

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?

Three clear sentences: purpose, usage hint, output format. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with main action.

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 0 parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what to expect. Combined with annotations, no gaps remain.

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?

No parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%). Description naturally adds no parameter info but compensates by explaining output structure. Baseline 4 for void input is appropriate.

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?

Description states specific verb 'Return' and resource 'active platform-wide system notifications', details content type (admin-published broadcasts, scheduled-downtime, feature launches) and ordering (newest first). Clearly distinguishes from other notification tools by specifying 'platform-wide system' not user-specific.

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?

Provides explicit usage advice: 'Usually empty; worth an occasional check, not a tight poll.' This tells the agent when to invoke (occasional) and when not to (frequent polling). Does not name specific alternatives but contextually separates from user-scoped notifications.

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