New notifications

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: the batch is stored and re-returned until acknowledged, calendar events are read-once and require allow_consume_events=true, and the tool changes Librus view state for grades, attendance, and homework while never opening messages. These details materially help an agent avoid unintended side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only high-value constraints about batch persistence, calendar-event consent, and view-state side effects. Every sentence contributes specific operational information without unnecessary repetition.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the input schema has full description coverage, the description supplies the remaining critical context: lifecycle, side effects, read-once calendar behavior, and message non-opening behavior. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and understand its consequences.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents account_alias, categories, and allow_consume_events. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema by explaining why allow_consume_events is needed for read-once calendar events and by clarifying the notification categories in context.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checking a login for new grades, attendance, messages, announcements, calendar events, or homework. It also distinguishes this batched notification check from direct category getters by explaining that results are stored and returned until acknowledge_notifications.

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?

The description gives clear context for when this tool applies: checking for new notifications across selected categories, with lifecycle guidance tied to acknowledge_notifications. It does not explicitly compare against direct sibling getters such as get_grades or get_attendance, but the batched/acknowledgment model provides sufficient usage context.

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