list_notification_logs

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with this by describing a listing/log examination function. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: explains pagination behavior, default usage of maximum perPage (200), and what details to check for debugging. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but adds useful operational context.

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 appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, provides context about what notification logs are, then gives usage guidance and debugging details. Some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the debugging details section is quite detailed), but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with essential information.

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 listing tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good completeness. It explains what the tool returns (notification logs with specific fields), how to use pagination, and debugging context. The main gap is lack of output format details since there's no output schema, but the description compensates reasonably by listing key response fields to examine.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds some semantic context: explains that 'after' should use the last ID from previous results for pagination, and that perPage maximum is 200. However, it doesn't provide additional meaning for notificationId beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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: 'list notification logs in Paddle' with specific context about what notification logs are (delivery attempt records). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_notifications' by focusing specifically on logs rather than notifications themselves, and from 'replay_notification' by being read-only versus action-oriented.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to examine delivery attempts and debug issues. It mentions using maximum perPage by default and pagination with 'after' parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the context implies it's for logs rather than notifications.

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