ofw_get_notifications

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

The description discloses the non-obvious side effect — 'updates your last-seen status' — which explains the destructiveHint=true / readOnlyHint=false annotations rather than contradicting them. It stops short of stating downstream consequences (e.g., whether unread counts change on subsequent calls) or any auth requirements.

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, zero filler: the payload of the summary comes first and the side-effect caveat is a clearly marked trailing note. Nothing needs to be trimmed or moved.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and only three annotations, this simple tool is fully covered: the description states what is returned and the one behavior the annotations flag. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and what to expect.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters or inlining an argument shape.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus a named resource ('OurFamilyWizard dashboard summary') with the three aggregates it returns spelled out (unread messages, upcoming events, outstanding expenses). That enumeration distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as ofw_list_messages, ofw_list_events, and ofw_get_expense_totals without needing to open any 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 'dashboard summary' framing implies the use case (a quick overview rather than a full listing), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no alternatives named. The agent must infer that this is the aggregate shortcut versus the individual list tools.

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