get_notifications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get DONKI notifications' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or what 'DONKI' stands for (NASA's Space Weather Database). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. The 'Args:' section is well-structured. It could be slightly more concise by integrating defaults into the purpose statement, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral context and output details. For a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, it's minimally adequate but leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior and results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully documents all 3 parameters: start_date (format YYYY-MM-DD, default 7 days before current), end_date (same format, default current date), and notification_type (options: all, FLR, SEP, CME, IPS, MPC, GST, RBE, report with default 'all'). This adds complete meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Get' and resource 'DONKI notifications', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that focus on asteroids, Earth imagery, Mars rovers, and other space-related data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other notification-related tools (none exist in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.

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, context for selecting notification types, or comparison with sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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