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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses what is reported (app, time, OTC presence, shown/silently suppressed), the hard limitation (no text), the default early-return behavior, and that no automation session is required. This goes well beyond the name and schema.

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 description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, motivating example, output contents, explicit limitation, alternative, and timing. The most important scoping details are front-loaded.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is unusually complete: it states the returned data categories, the key limitation, the alternative path, the default wait behavior, and session requirements. An agent can decide when to call it and what to expect.

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?

All six parameters already have descriptive schema text, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of returning as soon as the first notification arrives merely restates waitForFirst's documented default and adds usage timing rather than new parameter meaning.

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 opening sentence names a specific action (watch/return notifications), a concrete resource (iOS device notifications), and an explicit use case (confirming an app received a push/OTP). It also draws a clear boundary by warning it cannot return notification text and pointing to ios_page_source for that, so an agent can tell it apart from capture/read tools.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context ('confirm an app actually got a push or alert', OTP arrival after login) and precise timing instructions (trigger action first, call immediately or run while action happens). It also states what the tool cannot do and names the alternative, covering both selection and invocation.

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