list_notices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses the kind of data returned and a workflow context, but says nothing about whether results are unread-only, how they are ordered, whether reading marks them as read, or retention behavior. Acceptable for a low-risk read tool, but not rich.

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 short sentences: the first identifies the resource and its contents, the second gives the usage trigger. Front-loaded, no filler, nothing redundant with structured fields.

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 two-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it returns and when to call it. Additional detail on result ordering or read-state would help but is not essential to invoke it correctly.

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%, so both pagination parameters (page_count, page_index) and their defaults are already documented in the schema. The description adds no paging or ordering semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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+resource (list of in-site notifications) and clarifies the content types (review results, platform announcements), which tells an agent exactly what this returns. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like list_chapters or list_drafts, but the resource is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

It states a concrete trigger: use it after publishing a chapter to monitor whether the chapter passed review. That is genuine when-to-use guidance tied to a sibling workflow (publish_chapter). It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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