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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds context that Orbit never notifies about the user's own actions, which is useful behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention pagination (cursor) or filtering behavior beyond what the schema suggests, which is a minor gap.

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 concise, at two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose ('inbox' and 'find work handed to you by name'). Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description is complete enough for a read-only list tool with a well-documented schema and annotations. It explains the scope (personal notifications) and addresses the self-action exclusion. Pagination details are not described, but the schema covers them, so this is a minor omission. With no output schema, return values are not specified, but that's acceptable for a list tool.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only gives a high-level summary of the resource. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool lists notifications addressed to the user, with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('notifications'). It also distinguishes it from other list tools by emphasizing personal inbox content (mentions, assignments, etc.) and notes that it excludes self-generated actions, which differentiates it from generic list 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?

The description implicitly tells when to use it: when you want to find work handed to you by name. It does not explicitly list alternatives like list_my_issues or mark_notification_read, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage. No explicit exclusions are provided, but the 'by name' phrasing gives guidance.

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