Notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety semantics are covered. The description adds useful content context (what notification categories exist, and that results are 'recent' rather than exhaustive), but says nothing about volume, ordering, or how the paging cursor interacts with that recency window.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource stated first, followed by content examples and the primary use case. No redundant clauses and nothing to trim.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back and why you'd call it. The only missing piece is return-shape detail (ordering, expected count), which is minor since the annotations establish it as a safe read.

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% — the single 'before' parameter already documents its ISO timestamp format and paging role. The description adds no format or usage detail for it, which is the expected baseline 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 resource (notifications) scoped to the account and enumerates the concrete contents (finished renders, failed publishes, allowance warnings), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not name the sibling mark_notifications_read as the contrasting operation, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 clear when-to-use context: 'answering "did anything break" without reading every post.' There is no explicit exclusion or named alternative (e.g., mark_notifications_read), so it stops short of the 5-level routing guidance.

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