manage_notifications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the offset parameter, or what format the notifications are returned in. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise at just three words ('Fetch user notifications'). It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero wasted words. Every element of the description earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks crucial context about authentication, return format, and usage guidelines. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally explain what gets returned, but it doesn't.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (status, limit, offset). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Fetch user notifications' clearly states the verb ('fetch') and resource ('user notifications'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling notification tools (none are listed, but the name 'manage_notifications' suggests broader functionality than just fetching).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While there are no obvious sibling notification tools in the list, the name 'manage_notifications' implies this might be part of a notification management suite, but the description doesn't clarify if this is the primary fetch tool or if other tools handle different notification operations.

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