Notification status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only and offline profile is pre-known; the description largely corroborates this with "Offline: it does not check Librus or acknowledge anything." That is useful confirmation but adds little new behavioral detail, and terms like "uncertain delivery to resolve" are left undefined.

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 the state check front-loaded and the negative scope (offline, non-acknowledging) immediately after. No filler, though the second sentence could be slightly more concrete about what it does instead of Librus checks.

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?

With an output schema present and a single fully-described parameter, most of the informational burden is carried elsewhere. Still, key domain concepts ("unacknowledged notification batch", "uncertain delivery") are unexplained and the relationship to the notification siblings is not stated, so an agent may not know what to do with the returned state.

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% and the single account_alias parameter is fully documented in the schema (including the list_accounts provenance), so the description carries little burden. "Whether a login" merely echoes the parameter; nothing new is added about alias resolution or failure modes.

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?

Specific verb ("Show whether") plus a well-scoped resource: the notification state of one login, covering both an unacknowledged batch and an uncertain delivery. It is distinguishable from get_new_notifications (fetches) and acknowledge_notifications (mutates), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 clause "it does not check Librus or acknowledge anything" implies when this tool is the wrong choice and that acknowledge_notifications is the follow-up, but no sibling is named and no explicit condition selects this over get_new_notifications. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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