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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them ('Rein lesend'). It adds useful context beyond the annotations by clarifying that the data is scoped to the authenticated account's own inbox and by pointing to the mutation counterpart, though it says nothing about volume/pagination of the result.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the routing rules, and the trailing EN keyword line aids retrieval. It is a dense run-on with several cross-references, but every clause carries routing value, so little is wasted.

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?

For a parameterless, read-only list tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, scope, and sibling alternatives. The only gap is return shape (count, ordering, unread flag), which is minor for this tool class.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly gives no parameter guidance, which is appropriate here.

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+scope: retrieving the logged-in account's own notifications ('Die eigenen Benachrichtigungen abrufen (Meldungen des angemeldeten Kontos)'). It also names the closely-related siblings (ontouser_notification_index, ontouser_notification_read, onto_action_logs), so an agent can separate this tool from near-identical ones without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use routing: use this to find new notifications, switch to ontouser_notification_index when acting as a scope user, use ontouser_notification_read to mark as read, and onto_action_logs for admin system logs. Both the alternatives and the conditions that select them are stated.

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