list_expiry_notices

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

The description simply restates the operation and adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention scope, pagination, filters, or any side effects. Since annotations already declare it safe, the description fails to add any extra useful behavior information.

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 a single, concise phrase with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and does not waste any space, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, the phrase "expiry notices" is somewhat ambiguous, especially given the existence of a similarly named sibling tool. The description is minimally sufficient but lacks clarity about what constitutes an "expiry notice."

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 has zero parameters, so the schema captures all needed input. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps; the baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 "列出到期通知" translates to "List expiry notices," providing a clear verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from the similar sibling tool "list_dial_user_expiry_notices," so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool relative to other list_* tools. There are no context signals, exclusions, or alternative tool references. The description is a bare phrase with no usage context.

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