Get account notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety of the operation is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by warning that the returned text is third-party authored and must be treated as data rather than instructions. It also discloses the shape of the payload (count plus list of notices). It stops short of mentioning pagination or freshness, keeping it at a 4.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a security caveat that earns its place. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (count plus list of notices) and the trust characteristics of that content. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter semantics because none exist, and nothing is misrepresented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the notification/activity feed'), names the surface it comes from (parent dashboard), and gives concrete examples of notice types. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling artsonia_set_notifications (set vs. get) without opening either schema.

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 phrase 'on the parent dashboard' implies the retrieval context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as artsonia_get_feedback or artsonia_get_awards. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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