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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the call is expensive due to per-recipient server-side rechecking, returns at most 100 items with no pagination, and items[].id is the deliveryId used for marking read. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure that annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and organized into labeled sections for the usage chain and pitfalls. Every sentence carries operational value; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational knowledge: login requirement, what the output contains, how to use ids downstream, heavy-call warning, and result limits. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret basic results.

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?

The single parameter unreadOnly has 100% schema description coverage, including its default value. The tool description itself does not discuss the parameter, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema, but the schema fully compensates. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (the current user's organization notifications), the verb (list), and the scope (notifications received by me, limited to activity notices/announcements). It also distinguishes the tool by noting it returns per-organization notification switches, which separates it from generic list_my_* siblings.

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 gives clear context: login is required, this is for viewing received organization notifications, and it provides a follow-up chain to mark read or disable marketing notifications. It also gives explicit exclusions—don't call in loops or daily batches because it is heavy, and there is no pagination. It does not explicitly compare against an alternative listing tool, so it stops short of full alternative-selection guidance.

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