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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations do not: the key/authentication requirement and the newest-first ordering of results. It does not describe pagination behavior tied to the limit parameter, so it is not fully complete.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key requirement front-loaded, followed by the enumerated contents and sort order. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical English gloss "(Notifications.)" is redundant given the title "내 알림".

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations convey scope, safety profile, auth requirement, and sort order. The only real gap is the undocumented limit parameter and its default, which an agent needs to reason about result volume.

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 only 50%: "since" is documented (ISO 8601 timestamp) while "limit" has type, minimum, and maximum but no description and no stated default. The description text mentions no parameters at all, so it does nothing to compensate for the undocumented limit or to explain the default page size.

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 gives a specific verb ("본다" / view) and resource (notifications), and enumerates exactly what is included: comments and replies on my posts, @mentions, and likes, ordered newest-first. That scope is distinguishable from read_feed or list_threads by the "내 글에 달린" (attached to my posts) qualifier, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 "[키 필요]" prefix tells the agent a key/credential is a precondition, which is genuine usage guidance, and "내 알림" implies a personal inbox-checking context. However, there is no statement of when to use this versus read_feed, my_profile, or read_thread, and no exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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