List notification duties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it is paged, and it discloses the shape of each returned record (authority, applicability, deadline in words, source, verification level) even though no output schema exists.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: the resource and return contents lead, filtering follows, paging closes. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 an eight-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by describing returned fields, filter axes and paging. It omits any mention of the lang/response_format switches and default filter behavior, which are minor given the schema documents them.

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 already 88%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds interpretive value by glossing 'zone' as 'financial free zone' (clarifying the difc/adgm/qfc enum) and by naming the two trigger semantics (cyber-incident or personal-data-breach), which the schema leaves as bare enum values.

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 names the resource (notification duties in the register) and enumerates the returned fields — authority, applicability, deadline in words, official source, verification level — so an agent knows exactly what a call yields. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the singular sibling najjab_get_obligation, but the plural register-listing framing and filter surface make the distinction inferable.

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 states the available filters (country, financial free zone, trigger, sector) and that results are paged, which implies the browse-and-filter use case. However, it never says when to prefer this over najjab_deadlines or najjab_get_obligation, nor when-not to use it, leaving routing between siblings to inference.

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