Caixa de entrada

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the useful fact that each item carries original text, interpreted name/value and status, which is return-value shape rather than behavior. It says nothing about pagination limits, default status filtering, or ordering, so the added behavioral context is modest.

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 compact sentences: the first front-loads the operation and its filters, the second describes item contents. Nothing is redundant or padded. It could only be tighter by folding the filter list into a single clause.

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?

With no output schema, the second sentence usefully tells the agent what each returned item looks like, and the first covers the main filter surface. The missing piece is pagination behavior for a paginated list with 6 params, which an agent needs to fetch everything reliably.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it names most of the filter dimensions (status, source app, date, rule). However it never mentions page/pageSize at all, leaving two of six parameters undocumented anywhere. Partial compensation with a clear gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Lista as notificações capturadas (inbox)') plus the filterable dimensions (status, source app, date, applied rule), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as list_inbox_rules or list_notifications, which keeps it below 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?

Use is implied by phrasing like 'por status, app de origem, data ou regra aplicada', which tells the agent when each filter applies. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no mention of the alternatives (e.g., list_inbox_rules for rules, discard_inbox_items for acting on items).

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