gerent365_get_notifications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'gets notifications' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, whether it marks notifications as read, what authentication is required, or what the response structure looks like. This is a minimal description that leaves important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It immediately conveys the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured. There is zero redundancy or 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but lacks key contextual details. It doesn't explain what a 'notification' is, how the results are ordered, whether pagination is involved, or what the response format includes. The low parameter count and lack of annotations mean the description should provide more context, but it falls short.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'unreadOnly' with the description 'Devolver solo las no leídas' (Return only unread ones). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, and since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description neither clarifies nor conflicts with the parameter semantics.

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 verb 'Obtiene' and the resource 'notificaciones del usuario/negocio', making it evident what the tool does. However, the scope 'usuario/negocio' is slightly ambiguous—does it return notifications for the current user, the business, or both? There are no sibling notification tools, so differentiation isn't needed, but the ambiguity prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. Since no sibling notification tools exist, the need for explicit alternative references is reduced, but the description still lacks any contextual advice.

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