Get Notification Details

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds the return field list, but it does not disclose behavior for missing/invalid IDs or error cases. Overall this is adequate but not above and beyond the annotations.

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 cleanly structured with a one-line purpose, an Args block, and a Returns breakdown. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read-only getter and has no filler, though the Args section is slightly redundant alongside the input schema.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and an explicit return-field list, which is enough for a correct basic invocation. The main gap is the absence of error/not-found behavior and a hint that IDs should come from ogarniai_list_notifications, but this is minor for a getter of this complexity.

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 schema already fully describes the id parameter with format, pattern, and description. The description's 'Notification ID (UUID format)' adds only a marginal semantic label over the schema's generic 'Resource ID,' so it does not meaningfully go beyond what structured data already provides.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Get details of a specific notification.' This distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings such as ogarniai_list_notifications and ogarniai_get_unread_count, so an agent can select it as the single-object retrieval tool.

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 intended usage is implied: use it when you have a notification ID and need full details for one specific notification. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like ogarniai_list_notifications for finding IDs, so this dimension only reaches 'implied usage,' not explicit routing.

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