list_notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which tell the agent this is a safe read with potentially incomplete results. The description adds small context (the sysevent_email_action table) but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, default limits, or how filters interact with openWorldHint. The bar is lowered due to annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource without any filler. Every word earns its place, and the parenthetical table name is useful technical context.

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 list tool with 5 optional filter parameters, no required params, and good annotations, this description is mostly complete. It conveys the purpose and scope (email notification definitions). However, with no output schema, the agent must infer what fields are returned, and the description does not mention that results may be filtered or limited. Still, the openWorldHint annotation covers some of that gap.

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 100% — all five parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It only mentions the table name, which is tangential to parameter semantics.

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 states the action ('List') and the resource ('email notification definitions') and provides the underlying table name (sysevent_email_action). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_notification (single record) and create/update_notification (mutations).

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?

The description implies this tool is for viewing all email notification definitions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as get_notification, list_notification_subscriptions, or schedule_notification. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, leaving usage to be inferred.

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