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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a valuable behavioral nuance: 'sent' does not confirm the user read it, which clarifies the semantic limits of the status field. This goes beyond what annotations express.

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 two tight sentences. The core action is front-loaded with a concise list of statuses, followed by a single caveat that adds real value. No wasted words.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema already present, and a clear sibling contrast, the description covers the essential behavior. The caveat about 'sent' prevents a common misinterpretation. Nothing critical for invoking the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the burden of explaining the parameter, but it does not mention notification_id at all. The schema only provides the name and type, leaving the agent to infer what the ID refers to. This is a clear gap.

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 states a specific action ('Read') on a well-defined resource (notification status) and enumerates the possible states ('queued/sending/sent/failed'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'notify', which presumably creates/sends notifications. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does.

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 this is for checking delivery status, likely after using 'notify', but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The usage context is inferable from the read-vs-write contrast with 'notify', but the guidance is not explicit.

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

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

Annotations provide only the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context: notifications are queued rather than sent directly, delivery is server-controlled, and idempotency_key prevents duplicate queue entries. This goes beyond what annotations already provide.

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 and dense; each line contributes semantic value and the main action is front-loaded. The event list is slightly compressed but still readable.

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 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description covers most parameters well but misses the required message parameter and the title parameter. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the missing parameter semantics leave a meaningful gap.

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 carries the full burden. It explains event, source, url, and idempotency_key with concrete meaning, but it does not explain message — the only required parameter — or title. This is a partial compensation for an otherwise undocumented 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Queue a notification') and adds the key scope that channel and recipient are server-chosen. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling notification_status.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The description explains queueing behavior but never states when to use notify versus notification_status, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the tool names and context.

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