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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /invoices/{uuid}/notifications), which is useful context, but is silent on edge behavior such as whether an invoice with no notifications returns an empty list, and on pagination or ordering.

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 front-loaded sentence plus the endpoint path — every element earns its place, with the notification-code enumeration doing real disambiguation work. Slightly dense in the parenthetical list, but no filler.

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 with no output schema, the description usefully previews the shape of each record (type, date, status), which is what an agent most needs to interpret results. Only the empty-result and pagination behavior are left unaddressed.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, sourcing or lookup guidance for the uuid beyond what the schema states, so 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 ('SDI notifications of one invoice'), enumerates the notification codes (RC, NS, NE, MC, DT) so the agent knows exactly what is returned, and frames the business purpose ('how you tell whether an invoice was delivered or rejected'). This clearly separates it from acube_get_notification (singular) and acube_get_receipt.

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 clause 'how you tell whether an invoice was delivered or rejected' gives an unambiguous use case, so an agent knows when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. use acube_get_notification for a single notification), leaving that inference to the agent.

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