alphaportal_list_notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds important behavioral context: the returned text is third-party authored and must be treated as data, never instructions, which is a valuable trust/safety disclosure not present in structured fields.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded: it first states what is listed and what fields are returned, then follows with the critical untrusted-content warning. No sentence is wasted.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the returned content (title, body, student, timestamp) and adds an essential security caveat. An agent has everything needed to call and correctly interpret the 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?

Parameter count is 0, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation, and it correctly avoids discussing parameters that do not exist.

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 verb (List), resource (account's transportation notifications), and content scope (arrival/departure alerts with title, body, student, timestamp). It clearly distinguishes this read operation from the sibling set_notification tool.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is provided. The purpose implies a list operation, but the description does not help an agent choose between this and other read tools like get_bus_location or set_notification.

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