freelance_list_notifications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals an auth requirement, an invariant that the recipient is always taken from the token and cannot be overridden, and the effective requirement on `side`, which schema would otherwise mark as optional.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: identification, ordering, auth, recipient sourcing, and side semantics. It is front-loaded with the most identifying information and contains no 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?

It covers purpose, ordering, auth, the recipient invariant, and effective parameter requirements, with `limit` documented in the schema. The main gap is that, with no output schema, it does not describe what a notification object looks like or what a caller should expect in the response.

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 description gives `side` meaning beyond the enum, explaining what each lane represents and why omitting it produces a useless merged feed. It does not discuss `limit`, but the nested schema already documents its default and cap, so the main parameter ambiguity is resolved.

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 as 'this account's own notification feed' and states the ordering ('newest first'). This distinguishes it from other list tools in the sibling group, such as list_my_proposals or list_org_jobs.

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?

It explicitly gives a prerequisite (READ_OWN) and explains when to use each side lane: FIND_WORK for bid-related notifications and HIRE_TALENT for requisition-related ones. It warns that a merged feed answers neither use case, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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