Past notifications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses detailed behavioral aspects such as timestamps, answer structure (who, what, Discord id, when), and special handling of payment tickets. This goes beyond a simple metadata statement, though it omits potential side effects—likely none for a getter—and rate limits.

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 compact (three sentences), information-dense, and jargon-free. Every sentence provides value without redundancy, making efficient use of the agent's attention.

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 simple parameter set and lack of output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the agent can expect in the response, including edge cases like payment tickets. No critical details about the tool's behavior are 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?

The schema already covers both parameters (game, limit) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, but since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 indicates the tool returns past notifications sent to the team about a game, including timestamps and answers. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', the intent is transparent and distinct from siblings like notify_team, which sends notifications.

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 implies a use case: 'so a caller can gate on a specific pair of people having both approved.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions.

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