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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, yet the description still adds real value: result ordering (newest first), that an unread count is included, and the auth precondition ('Requires a wallet signature identity'). Missing only failure/empty-state behavior, which is minor given the annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose before paging and cross-reference details. Slightly over-packed with parenthetical category lists, but each clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

Complete for a read-only paginated list: purpose, ordering, auth requirement, pagination approach and the companion write tool are all covered, and an output schema exists so return-value shape needs no explanation.

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%, so limit, offset and unreadOnly are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a hint about paging with offset/limit, which the schema itself already explains; it says nothing extra about unreadOnly. Baseline 3 applies when 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the logged-in user's notifications') and enumerates the notification categories covered (order created/filled/cancelled/reclaimed, referral payouts). The scope qualifier 'logged-in user's' plus ordering ('newest first') and 'unread count' makes it clearly distinct from list_orders or internal_order_history 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?

Gives a concrete use case ('follow up on an order after creating it') and routes the agent to the sibling tool tronsave_mark_notifications_read for the write-side action. It doesn't state when NOT to use it versus other order-listing tools, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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