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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the behavioral trait that recipients are masked by default for incident-response safety, which is not in annotations. This provides useful context about output content. The description doesn't contradict 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?

One concise sentence with a second sentence for a key nuance. No filler, and the important scoping detail ('current company') is front-loaded. The masking note is placed second, but it's a notable side effect. Efficient and structured.

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 the tool has an output schema (though not shown explicitly), the description doesn't need to explain return format. It covers scope, filtering parameters implicitly via schema, and a key output behavior (masking). It doesn't mention pagination beyond the limit parameter, but with schema covering that, it's sufficiently complete for a read-only list tool.

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%, so all 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond the schema; it doesn't explain how the 'recipient' substring search works or how date filters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 the tool lists notification delivery logs for the current company, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('notification delivery logs'). It also mentions recipient masking, which distinguishes its purpose. Given the sibling list, it stands apart from other list_* tools because it's the only one dealing with notification logs.

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 implies usage for retrieving notification logs, and the 'current company' scope clarifies context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but among siblings, there are no other notification log tools, so the guidance is sufficient. The masking note gives a caveat about output. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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