List notifications

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

Annotations establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description layers on real operational detail: fixed page size of 20, sort order (unread first, then newest first), zero-based page index, and the more=true terminal condition. This is meaningful context beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

A compact, front-loaded passage: purpose and scope first, then pagination mechanics, then the return shape, then the sibling hand-off. No filler sentences.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does it: id, nullable title, HTML message, read flag, human-readable created_at, plus the pagination continuation flag. An agent has everything needed to call and consume the result.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented there ('Zero-based page number; 20 notifications per page. Defaults to 0'), so the description largely repeats it. The only added signal is the more=true exhaustion indicator, which is baseline-appropriate.

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+resource ('List account notifications from SimpleLogin') and enumerates the content types (announcements, warnings like mailbox bouncing), which separates it cleanly from the sibling notification_mark_read, a mutation on the same resource.

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?

Explains pagination usage ('Use page_id for pagination (starts at 0)') and routes the follow-up action to the sibling: 'Mark entries handled with notification_mark_read.' That is clear context, but it does not state when NOT to call this or what a caller should expect if there are zero notifications.

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