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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds only the vague qualifier 'recent' — it does not define the time window, the sort order, or whether the list is newest-first, which matters for a feed tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its content categories come first. Slightly long enumeration of content types at the tail, but nothing wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is that 'recent' is undefined and the boundary against get_errors/get_anomalies is unresolved, which is the main thing an agent needs to route correctly.

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% and all three parameters (limit, offset, unread_only) carry their own descriptions with defaults and bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline case.

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 and resource ('Get recent KrystalView notifications') and enumerates the content types returned (insights, setup notices, errors, anomalies). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tools get_errors and get_anomalies, which the description's wording actively overlaps with.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of get_errors or get_anomalies, both of which sound like they cover part of the same content. Nothing tells the agent whether this is a general inbox-style feed or a duplicate of those endpoints, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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