ads_mastodon_notification_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the critical safety trait ('never publishes anything'), which is genuinely valuable. But it omits authentication/account requirements, pagination behavior implied by since_id, rate limits, and what a 'bounded page' contains.

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, no filler. The resource and scope come first and the read-only guarantee is placed where it matters most.

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?

A paginated read tool with three undescribed parameters, no annotations, and no output schema leaves the agent guessing about return shape and paging. Only the read-only guarantee is adequately covered.

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 and it does not. It never explains limit (capped at 40), since_id (a pagination cursor), or account_id (which connected account's mentions are read), leaving all three parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (Mastodon mention notifications) with a scoping qualifier ('bounded page') and an intended downstream use (prepare a reply). It implicitly separates itself from publishing siblings like ads_mastodon_reply by noting it never publishes, though it doesn't name the sibling outright.

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 phrase 'to prepare a context-aware reply' implies this is a read step preceding a reply action, which is a useful usage cue. However, it names no explicit alternative or exclusion condition, so the agent must infer when to call this versus ads_mastodon_status or the reply tools.

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