list_notifications

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

With no annotations, the description adds some transparency by disclosing the return shape ('{items, channels}') and parameter defaults. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any other behavioral constraints, leaving much to inference.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences plus argument documentation—with the purpose stated first. Every word earns its place, and there is no wasted text.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context including the return structure and parameter behavior. It lacks details like authentication requirements or result limits, but is generally adequate.

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?

The description compensates for the 0% schema coverage by explaining 'rows_to_skip' as pagination offset and 'archived' as controlling inclusion of archived notifications. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare property names and defaults.

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 clearly states 'Return notifications/messages list' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_appointments and list_prescriptions. However, the phrase 'notifications/messages' is slightly ambiguous and no scope or filtering is described.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_message or list_timeline. The description simply states what the tool does without any context about when it is appropriate.

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