Get Notification Preferences

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotency, and the description restates 'Read-only' rather than adding to it. However, it adds real behavioral context the annotations don't: results are per-channel (implying one call per channel) and the value space is a fixed set of four frequencies, which frames the response shape.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with purpose first, scope second, and the prerequisite dependency last. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema; the description covers purpose, scope, value space, and the dependency needed before calling. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the same pointer to get_communication_channels. The description repeats that guidance but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, 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 ('Get how often Canvas notifies you about each event type'), scopes it to a single channel, and enumerates the possible values (immediately, daily, weekly, never). An agent can tell exactly what this returns and how it differs from channel-listing siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite: fetch channel_id via get_communication_channels first. It doesn't state when-not to use it or name alternatives for bulk/multi-channel retrieval, but for a single-purpose read tool the usage context is clear.

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