Character notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by noting the YAML payload is parsed and ids are resolved to names, and 'Recent' implies ordering, but it says nothing about pagination behavior past the limit cap or how unread_only interacts with the result set.

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 sentences, zero padding, with the resource definition and its payload-processing behavior front-loaded and the filtering hint placed last. Every sentence carries information an agent would not get from the schema or annotations.

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 description usefully characterizes the return shape as parsed YAML with resolved names, which is the key unknown for this tool. It does not describe the ordering guarantee or what the unread state looks like in results, leaving a small gap for a feed-style tool.

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 75%, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds useful semantics for type_filter by giving concrete substring examples ('Structure', 'War', 'Kill'), but the undocumented unread_only flag and the limit/character defaults are left entirely to the schema.

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?

Names the resource precisely (recent in-game notifications) and enumerates the concrete content types it returns (structure attacks, war declarations, kill reports, sov, corp applications), which lets an agent distinguish it from mail_list and killmails. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those adjacent tools, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

Usage is implied through the type_filter guidance ('Filter by type substring (e.g. Structure, War, Kill)'), which shows how to narrow results. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over killmails or mail_list, nor any exclusion or prerequisite guidance.

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