learnus_list_notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it guarantees the read does not mark notifications as read (a side-effect that readOnlyHint alone would not clarify) and warns that notifications are informational, not implicit task assignments.

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 with zero filler; the core action and its side-effect guarantee are front-loaded before the usage and exclusion clauses. Every clause carries distinct information.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema list tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, trigger, exclusion and side effects adequately. The only gap is that 'normalized' notifications are not characterized (what fields come back), which matters slightly given there is no output schema.

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 'limit' parameter already documents its meaning, default and bounds. The description adds no additional semantics about ordering or the meaning of the limit, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists normalized LearnUs account notifications') plus a key side-effect constraint ('without marking them read'). The resource is distinct from the sibling announcement tools, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with learnus_list_announcements, so the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use when the user asks about recent LearnUs alerts or notifications') and an explicit exclusion ('Do not use it to infer a required task merely from a new-file notice'). No alternative sibling tool is named for the excluded case, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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