get_notifications

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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'Visiting this view may mark X notifications read', 'absent evidence remains unknown', and 'visible supported UI' scope. However, that first disclosure conflicts with the declared readOnlyHint=true, which asserts the tool does not modify its environment, so the two sources of truth cannot both be right.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and structured with a semicolon-separated clause list for the behavioural notes. No filler, though 'verified' and 'bounded' are used without definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers scope, evidence uncertainty, and the read-marking side effect. What is missing is the meaning of 'limit' (pagination/offset behaviour) and any indication of what 'bounded' means in practice.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only gestures at 'All or Mentions tab' (mapping to the view enum) without naming the parameter. The required 'account' parameter and the 'limit' parameter are never explained, leaving most semantics to the bare schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read ... X notifications') and scopes it to a 'verified All or Mentions tab', so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbours such as get_inbox or get_home_feed, leaving the sibling boundary implicit.

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?

'from a verified All or Mentions tab' and 'Results cover only the visible supported UI' imply prerequisites and scope conditions, and the side-effect warning about marking notifications read is a useful usage caveat. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative (e.g. get_inbox) to route between.

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