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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the feature-gating (404 when disabled), the ordering guarantee, and the mutual-exclusivity constraint. It does not disclose return shape (no output schema), but the annotations lower the bar, and the added context justifies a 4.

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 dense but information-rich, front-loading the core action and then packing filter, pagination, batch, and feature constraints into three sentences without redundancy. Every clause earns its place, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to scan.

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 tool with 12 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key invocation concerns: pagination, filter combinations, the batchId/sort rule, and the feature requirement. It does not describe the response envelope, but given the absence of an output schema and the presence of sibling tools for specific reads, this is a minor gap.

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 every parameter is documented in the schema with defaults, enums, and constraints. The description reinforces a few relationships (severity/minSeverity mutual exclusivity, batchId/sort coupling) but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. At the high-coverage baseline, this is a 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List notifications for the authenticated user's current team') and adds ordering ('most recent first'), making the core purpose unmistakable. It also enumerates the main filtering dimensions, which distinguishes it from more specialized siblings like getNotification or getNotificationFeed without needing to name them.

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 provides clear operational context: pagination via limit/cursor, mutual exclusivity of severity and minSeverity, and the special batchId/sort interaction ('only valid together with batchId'). It also flags a prerequisite (Notification Center feature) and the resulting 404. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool against alternative list feeds like getNotificationFeed, so an agent might not immediately know which to prefer.

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