notifications_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations don't: the scope is the authenticated user's own notifications, results are paginated, and the concrete taxonomy of possible notification types. It doesn't state ordering (newest first?) or whether read and unread are mixed, which keeps it below 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action plus scope come first with the type list as supporting detail. The enumerated types are dense but each one earns its place by telling the agent what states can appear.

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 read-only list tool whose annotations cover safety and whose schema fully documents both params, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is the absence of any hint about ordering or the shape of a notification item (since no output schema exists), which would help an agent consume the result correctly.

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 100% and both parameters (page, limit) are fully documented with defaults and max in the schema. The description only restates "paginated" and adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Retrieve a paginated list of notifications") plus the scope constraint ("for the authenticated user"). The enumeration of notification types further pins down what the resource contains, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like notifications_unread_count or notifications_mark_read.

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 by the verb "list" rather than stated: there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus notifications_unread_count or the mark-read tools, and no mention of filtering by read status or type. An agent can infer the purpose but must reason about alternatives on its own.

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