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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond that by requiring login and by enumerating the exact returned notification categories (follows, dms, activities, drops, matches, nudge), giving the agent a concrete picture of the response contents.

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 a single dense sentence, front-loaded with the login requirement and the core purpose. Each parenthetical explanation earns its place by clarifying a switch name without unnecessary 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 simple parameterless getter, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource, auth context, and all six returned fields. It does not specify the value format (e.g., booleans) or unauthenticated error behavior, but those are minor gaps given the low complexity and strong annotations.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the returned switches instead.

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 '返回当前用户的通知开关' (returns the current user's notification switches) and then enumerates each switch with a plain-language gloss. The read verb and specific resource clearly distinguish it from the sibling setter set_notification_prefs.

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 states the login requirement and scopes the tool to the current user's notification switches, giving clear context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, such as using get_my_preferences for broader preference retrieval, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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