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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real context on top: the error mode ("Returns a not found error for an unknown ID") and the scoping to sent notifications on this account. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, so it falls short of the richest disclosure, but it adds genuine behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then error behavior — a sensible ordering with no filler. The long enumeration of returned fields (content, delivery status, device count, errors, Tags, metadata, replacement count, dismissal time) is largely redundant given an output schema exists, which costs it a point.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what it returns, when to call it, the alternative for browsing, and what happens on a bad ID. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single public_id parameter is already fully documented, including its origin in list_push_notifications and equivalence to the send_push_notification notification_id. The description only restates "by its public ID" and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 ("Get one sent Push Notification from this account by its public ID") and then enumerates what comes back, so the agent knows exactly what it is fetching. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_push_notifications, which is the nearest sibling.

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?

Gives both the positive case ("inspect a specific notification, for example before calling replace_push_notification") and the exclusion with a named alternative ("To browse or filter history, use list_push_notifications"). The routing decision is fully resolved without opening either schema.

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