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

Annotations cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description need not restate that. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the response describes per-service URL forms, required tokens, secret classification, and provenance for obtaining them, which is exactly what an agent needs to reason about setup.

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 dense sentence plus a short clause about the no-search default; the conditional behavior is front-loaded as a trailing note. Slightly awkward punctuation around 'Without search' but essentially zero waste.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only lookup, the definition is mostly adequate, but it does not clarify the output shape (a list vs. one entry when searching), nor whether the token/secret metadata is exhaustive. With no output schema, a sentence on return structure would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100 percent and the single parameter already documents that it accepts a service name or scheme with the example 'slack' or 'tgram'. The description reinforces the search/no-search duality (omitting it returns the full list) and mentions scheme matching, which adds modest meaning over the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 description states specifically what the tool returns: notification service setup details, URL forms, required tokens, which are secrets, and where users obtain them, across Slack, Discord, Telegram, email, ntfy, Teams and 140 more. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list_notifications (which presumably lists configured notifications) although the name alone could suggest a list of active notification channels.

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?

It implies usage: call without 'search' to get the full list of services, call with 'search' to look up a specific service by name or scheme. However it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings like list_notifications, and no workflow context (e.g. use this before creating a notification to find the right URL form).

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