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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares 'Read-only', discloses sort order, the shape of results (array plus unreadCount), and that paging applies. It omits auth requirements, default/maximum page size, and total-count behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and how it is ordered, then the type enumeration, then the sibling exclusion. No filler.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape, ordering, and scope well enough to call it. The missing piece is concrete paging semantics, which matters when there are no annotations or schema descriptions to fall back on.

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 0%, so the description must explain page and limit. It only alludes to 'paging' without stating defaults, the maximum of 100, or what page numbering means, leaving both parameters effectively undocumented.

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 (list the caller's in-app notifications), the ordering (newest first), and the returned fields (type, subject, preview, isRead, createdAt). It also names the enumerated notification types and explicitly distinguishes itself from the CRM notification sibling.

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 sentence 'CRM lead notifications are separate (crm_list_notifications)' explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for CRM leads, which is real exclusion guidance. However, it never mentions when to prefer the sibling get_app_notifications_unread_count over this tool for a simple badge count.

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