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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by specifying the ordering ('Ungelesene zuerst') and the scope ('des Nutzers'), which helps the agent understand what results to expect.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core function, adds useful specifics, and ends with a concrete use-case. Every part earns its place and there is no 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 simple read-only list tool with full parameter documentation and safety annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool shows, the ordering, and the intended scenario. No output schema is present, but the return value is adequately implied by 'zeigt die Benachrichtigungen'.

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 the parameter names plus descriptions already explain anzahl and nur_ungelesen. The description adds only a marginal connection via 'Ungelesene zuerst', so a baseline score of 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 states the tool shows the user's notifications, enumerating specific types (new hits, new messages, platform notices). It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like nachrichten_lesen or meine_treffer, so it slightly misses the top bar for differentiation.

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 phrase 'Der schnellste Weg zu der Frage „gibt es was Neues?“' gives a clear use case for when to call this tool: when the user wants a quick overview of anything new. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended context is reasonably clear.

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