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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful domain context — that MCP approval requirements are admin-configurable while business workflow approvals always apply — which helps interpret the returned values rather than just restating 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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is slightly tangential to invocation but is short and adds interpretability, so it 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?

A no-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, so return-format details are correctly omitted. The description covers scope plus the one non-obvious caveat about which approval settings are fixed, leaving little an agent would need but not fully exhaustive.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing parameter-level for the description to explain; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Read your own notification preferences') and the 'your own' scoping distinguishes it from org-level settings and from list_notifications/update_notification_preferences. It never names the write sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 read scope implies when to use it, but there is no explicit routing such as 'to change these, use update_notification_preferences'. The second sentence is contextual background rather than usage guidance, so the agent must infer the read-vs-write boundary from the name alone.

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