get_notification

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it explains the 90-day retention policy, error handling for non-retained notifications, and details about notification statuses and attributes (e.g., status, origin, timestamps). This enhances understanding of the tool's behavior without contradicting 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important behavioral details. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the detailed breakdown of notification attributes (status, origin, etc.) is somewhat lengthy for a retrieval tool, though informative. Most sentences earn their place by clarifying tool behavior.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the tool's purpose, retention policy, error conditions, and key return attributes. However, it doesn't specify the output format or structure, which could be helpful given the lack of an output schema, leaving a minor 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'notificationId' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score 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 states the tool's purpose: 'retrieve a notification from Paddle by its ID.' This specifies the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('notification'), making it unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_notifications' or 'get_notification_setting,' which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 usage by mentioning that notifications older than 90 days aren't retained, suggesting this tool is for retrieving specific, recent notifications. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_notifications' or 'replay_notification,' and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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