get_notifications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether read and unread notifications are both returned, ordering, pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, or any auth requirement — a meaningful gap for a no-annotation read tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the triggering condition. No filler 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 simple, no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool with one optional param, the description is adequate but leaves the read/unread scope ambiguous — especially relevant given the sibling get_unread_notification_count exists and implies this tool may return something broader.

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 single optional parameter has a full schema description including its default (10), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is 100%.

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 clear verb+resource (get notifications) and the surrounding sentence frames the resource as the user's own notifications. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like get_unread_notification_count or mark_notifications_read, 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?

Gives a trigger condition ('user asks about updates, alerts, or what's new'), which is useful usage context. However, it names no alternative and gives no exclusions, so an agent cannot tell from this text why it should call this instead of get_unread_notification_count.

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