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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that preferences are per-event and describe which channels fire for each event type, which goes beyond the generic readOnlyHint.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds semantic value, and the key scoping qualifier ('per-event') appears early.

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?

Given zero parameters, a readOnlyHint, and an existing output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when calling it is appropriate. No critical usage context 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing additional to document, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter-related content.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the exact resource ('per-event notification delivery preferences'), and adds clarifying detail ('which channels fire for each event type'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notification_channels and makes its purpose immediately identifiable.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_notification_preferences or list_notification_channels. It implies a read operation, but provides no cues about when not to use related tools or what conditions would select this one.

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