List notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavior: newest-first ordering, pagination with has_more, the extra lookup cost of include_analytics, the contents of each item (content, status, targeting, delivery stats), and the meaning of absent criteria. No contradictions with annotations.

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 three well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the action and result. It covers purpose, usage, key behaviors, and parameter trade-offs without redundancy. Every sentence contributes information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 optional parameters, output schema present), the description is comprehensive. It explains return item contents, pagination mechanics, analytics cost, and cross-tool integration with send tools. The output schema covers return structure, so the description needn't repeat it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by explaining that include_analytics 'costs an extra lookup' and merges rolled-up counts and goal conversions—details not present in the schema. It also contextualizes pagination via has_more, which enriches parameter understanding.

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 tool lists push notifications on the current site, newest first, with pagination. It explicitly mentions discovering notification IDs and reviewing past/upcoming sends, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_sites or list_segments.

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 gives explicit use cases ('discover notification IDs and review past or upcoming sends') and a clear directive for when to enable include_analytics ('only when the user asks for stats'). It also links to send tools via reusable audience_groups ids, but does not explicitly state alternatives like 'use get_analytics_summary for aggregated stats'.

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