canvas_notification_preferences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the data-source hint and says nothing about what the response contains (a frequency string), whether pagination applies despite a page parameter, or how the raw flag changes output — all of which would be new information.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scope (delivery frequency, not full preferences) appears immediately. Slightly elliptical phrasing ("obtained from") costs a point but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only single-resource tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is read and where the identifier comes from. Naming the returned value shape (delivery frequency options) would close the last gap, but nothing blocking remains.

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 page (number or bookmark token) and raw (unmodified JSON with UTC times/HTML) are already fully documented, and channel_id's own description names canvas_communication_channels. The description adds no meaning beyond that baseline, which is the expected 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Read") and a specific resource ("delivery frequency for a notification channel"), which is distinct from sibling canvas_communication_channels, which enumerates the channels themselves. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling as the alternative, but the intended operation is unambiguous.

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 phrase "obtained from communication_channels" implies the prerequisite that channel_id must first be fetched via canvas_communication_channels, which is genuinely useful routing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of how this differs from reading full settings via canvas_settings.

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