notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: newest-first ordering, security codes being masked, and the Android platform limitation that only the app name survives for removed notifications. It does not cover result size or the limit parameter's effect.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: resource and returned fields come first, then the all=true condition, then the platform caveat. No filler sentences, though the compressed phrasing makes the trailing Android note easy to misread.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and ordering, which an agent would otherwise have to guess. The only real gap is the undocumented limit parameter and any indication of how many results come back.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `all` well (include permanent/ongoing-service notifications), but `limit` is never mentioned — no default of 40, no maximum, no truncation behavior. Half the parameters remain unexplained.

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?

Names a specific resource (notifications displayed on the phone) and enumerates the returned fields (app, time, title, text), plus ordering (most recent first) and masking behavior. This is enough to separate it from siblings like messages or phone without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent infers this is the tool for reading phone notifications. The only conditional guidance is 'all=true: also permanent (ongoing service) notifications', which is more parameter semantics than a when-to-use rule. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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