hires_get_notification_message

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'Get' by specifying the exact return fields ('subject, body, sender, recipient, and schedule metadata'), which clarifies what the agent can expect. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'Get' strongly implies a non-mutating operation.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause adds value. It avoids redundancy and does not repeat the schema's parameter description.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It states the purpose, enumerates the return fields, and provides a hint for discovering valid IDs. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter 'id' with its description 'Notification email message ID.' The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, mainly by giving an example and pointing to the candidate messages list for ID discovery. This aligns with the baseline for full schema coverage.

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's function: 'Get a notification email message (e.g. rejection email) by ID.' It identifies the specific resource type ('notification email message') and differentiates from sibling tools like 'get_message' by using the term 'notification'. The example and return-value summary further clarify the purpose.

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 provides actionable guidance by telling the agent to use the candidate messages list to discover notification message IDs. While it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool, the retrieval-by-ID pattern is self-evident and the hint directs the user to the appropriate list endpoint.

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