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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of what 'preview' computes, whether it reflects unsaved changes, or whether any input is required. It does not contradict the annotations, but it carries no extra behavioral value.

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 text is short but wastes half its length repeating the identical endpoint sentence twice, and the operation ID adds no selection value to an agent. It is under-specified rather than concise, with no front-loaded statement of purpose.

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?

With 0% parameter coverage, a nested free-form query object, no output schema, and a highly ambiguous name, the description leaves too much unresolved. The single useful element is the pointer to describe_operation, which is insufficient to tell an agent what this endpoint does or which inputs it accepts.

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% and there are two parameters, including a nested 'query' object with additionalProperties {} whose accepted keys are entirely undocumented. The description only redirects the agent to describe_operation for schemas, giving no meaning, format, or constraint for any parameter.

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 is a restatement of the title and HTTP path ('GET /api/notification-settings/preview' repeated twice), so it is tautological rather than explanatory. It conveys only that something called a 'preview' of notification settings is retrieved, without saying what a preview returns or how it differs from siblings like get_notification_settings_f43b492a9011960665a90046 or get_notification_settings_by_id_369fdd733eb0be3eee617526.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool instead of the many adjacent notification-settings tools. The only actionable hint is that describe_operation provides native request schemas, which is a procedural pointer rather than usage guidance, and no exclusions or preconditions are given.

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