list_vr_notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful disclosure that results come from sysevent_email_action and are restricted to the VR table family, but says nothing about result volume, ordering or pagination behavior beyond what the schema's limit field implies.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, then the alternative for writes. No filler or restated title.

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 with four optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is being listed, the scope constraint, and where to go for mutation. Only the shape of returned definitions is left unaddressed, which is a minor gap given the annotations.

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% (limit, table, active, name_contains are all documented with examples), so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description adds no additional meaning such as match semantics for name_contains or how table interacts with the sn_vul_*/sn_sec_* scope.

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 (List) and a precisely scoped resource (Vulnerability Response notification definitions stored in sysevent_email_action, limited to sn_vul_* / sn_sec_* tables). The table-family scope effectively separates it from the generic list_notifications sibling, though that sibling is never named 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?

Explicitly routes write operations to create_notification/update_notification, which is a clear when-not-this-tool signal. It does not say when to prefer this over list_notifications or get_notification, so the read-side routing is left implicit.

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