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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are scoped to active subscriptions rather than all events, and it sketches the shape of each record (lock, event type, event_id) even though no output schema exists.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose plus return fields first, then the filtering constraint, then the sibling route-out, then the endpoint. Nothing is repeated from the title and no sentence is 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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, record shape, event-type examples and the detail alternative. Minor omissions (no note about empty results when no subscription matches, no pagination hint) are covered by the schema.

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%, and both parameters (page, per_page) are documented in the schema including the next_page chaining convention. The description says nothing about pagination, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data and the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List notifications sent by notification subscriptions') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (lock/publisher, event type, event_id). It also differentiates itself from the sibling remotelock_get_event by pointing that tool at detail retrieval, so an agent can pick the right one without opening a schema.

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?

States the selection condition ('Only events that match a subscription appear') and names the alternative for detail ('Get details with remotelock_get_event'). It gives clear context for use but no explicit exclusions against the many other list_* siblings (devices, locations, persons), which an agent must infer.

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