View Account Notifications

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

Annotations mark the operation read-only and open-world, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it links to an MCP Apps UI resource, renders scannable announcement cards, and falls back to the JSON payload on unsupported hosts. It also clarifies payload equivalence with `list_account_notifications`, helping an agent predict return content. No contradiction 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 concise at about 50 words and leads with the core purpose before explaining the UI resource and fallback. The phrase 'same as list_account_notifications' appears twice, which is slightly redundant, but the overall structure is tight and 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 tool with one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, fallback, and payload equivalence. Pointing to `list_account_notifications` for the return payload is sufficient, and nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 optional parameter `account_id` is already fully documented in the input schema, including the 'self' default and usage. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so it stays at the baseline for 100% schema description coverage.

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 resource and behavior: an interactive panel of active institution-wide announcements. It explicitly differentiates the tool from the sibling `list_account_notifications` by noting it returns the same payload plus an MCP Apps UI resource, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 makes clear that this tool is the interactive presentation layer for account notifications and that it falls back to the same JSON payload as `list_account_notifications` on hosts without MCP Apps. This gives an agent a basis for choosing it over the plain list tool, though it never explicitly states 'use list_account_notifications when you only need JSON.'

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