List notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: 'Reading does not mark them seen' and 'newest first' ordering. It says nothing about result limits beyond schema/defaults, but that is covered in the schema.

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 tight sentences: the source and content are front-loaded, then ordering and two constraints. No filler and nothing redundant with 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-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers source, content types, ordering, chat exclusion and unread side-effect. Only the shape of returned notification objects is unspecified, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so page, per_page and unread_only are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter interaction (e.g., how unread_only combines with paging), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Notifications from the panel's bell') and enumerates the content types (new bookings, changes, cancellations, reviews), plus ordering ('newest first'). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_reviews or list_appointments, which cover single sources.

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?

Gives explicit exclusion ('Client chat is not included') and a scoping condition for the source panel. However, it doesn't name an alternative tool for chat messages or reviews, so the agent must infer the routing rather than being told.

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