Read notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the ordering ('newest first') and the practical distinction between notification types (which need answering), which is helpful beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the content and ordering; the second adds a practical filtering tip. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 comprehensive annotations and high schema parameter coverage, the description is nearly complete. It omits explicit mention of pagination behavior, but that is disclosed in the schema's limit description ('Pages automatically'). The only slight gap is the lack of a note about the return format, which is acceptable since no output schema is provided.

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 80%, so most parameters (limit, account, reasons, unread_only) already have descriptions in the schema. The description reinforces the 'reasons' parameter's filtering purpose but adds no new semantic detail beyond that. Since coverage is high, 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?

The description clearly states that the tool retrieves the user's notifications (likes, reposts, follows, mentions, replies, quotes) and orders them newest first. It is specific about the resource and the verb, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_unread_count or mark_notifications_seen, so it loses one point.

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 description gives clear contextual guidance: it explains that filtering by 'mention' and 'reply' is useful for surfacing items that actually need an answer. However, it does not mention alternative tools for unread counts or marking as seen, so the when-not-to-use guidance is incomplete compared to a perfect score.

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