get_notification_setting

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 discloses that the endpointSecretKey is returned for webhook verification and includes security warnings ('secure value,' 'never be shared,' 'store securely'). This enhances transparency about sensitive data handling, though it doesn't cover rate limits or error behaviors.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose. The second sentence adds important security context without redundancy. Both sentences earn their place, though minor improvements in structure (e.g., bullet points for security warnings) could push it to a 5.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint), the description is reasonably complete. It adds security warnings that aren't covered by annotations or schema. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the full response structure (e.g., other fields besides endpointSecretKey), 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'notificationSettingId,' which is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the 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 setting (notification destination) from Paddle by its ID.' This specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('notification setting'), and scope ('by its ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_notification_settings' or 'get_notification', which would require a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_notification_settings' for bulk retrieval or 'get_notification' for individual notifications, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without contextual usage direction.

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