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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety bar is low. The description is consistent with the annotations. It adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as pagination behavior or filter semantics, but the schema covers most of that via descriptions.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no waste, and the clarifying parenthetical is front-loaded. The trade-off is that brevity comes at the cost of usage guidance, but as pure conciseness it scores well.

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?

Completeness is adequate: output schema present, all 8 params documented, annotations covering safety. The main gap is usage discrimination guidance across the many signals.* siblings, which would materially help an agent select the right tool. Pagination is covered by meta.next_page in the schema, so nothing critical is missing there.

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%, with all 8 parameters individually documented (tab enum, page cursor, limit, matches, location, department, tracker_id). The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the high schema coverage warrants the baseline score of 3.

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?

States the verb 'List' and resource 'signal notifications', with the clarifying parenthetical 'new openings at tracked companies' that distinguishes it from signals.list (trackers) and signals.recommendations.list. However, it doesn't name any sibling tool explicitly, so differentiation relies on the parenthetical alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With a crowded sibling set (signals.list, signals.recommendations.list, inbox.list, jobs.list), there is no when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement. The parenthetical hints at scope but provides no selection criteria for an agent.

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