View Account Notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's main transparency job is to add behavior beyond those. It does that by disclosing the interactive panel behavior, the exact relationship to list_account_notifications, and the fallback payload while preserving the same JSON result. No contradiction with annotations: the tool reads and renders, it does not mutate.

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 compact and highly informative: two sentences cover function, scope, UI behavior, sibling equivalence, and fallback handling. Every sentence contributes something useful and the primary function is front-loaded.

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 read-only UI-oriented wrapper with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what kind of payload to expect by referencing list_account_notifications and discloses the fallback behavior when the MCP Apps UI is unavailable. It could go deeper, but given the annotations and simple parameter surface this is not a 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?

The single parameter account_id has 100% schema description coverage, including the 'self' value and default. The description adds no further semantics about how account_id affects the interactive panel.

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 uses a specific verb ('View') and identifies the resource: active institution-wide announcements. It also distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling list_account_notifications by stating it returns the same payload but adds an MCP Apps UI resource. This gives an agent a clear, non-tautological understanding of what the tool does.

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 clearly names list_account_notifications as the alternative and explains the fallback behavior for hosts without MCP Apps support, implying when this UI-oriented variant is useful. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement, such as 'if only the JSON payload is needed, use list_account_notifications,' so it misses the full explicit-when/when-not bar.

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