Notification settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no hint that results are tenant-scoped, no mention of cache behavior or why an agent might bypass the local cache, and no indication of what the response contains.

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?

One fragment, zero waste, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially no content to order.

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 single-parameter read tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description still leaves the essential question unanswered: whose settings (the authenticated user's, the business's, or both) and in what shape they come back. It is complete enough to guess at, not complete enough to call with confidence.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema coverage ('fresh' — 'Skip the local cache'), so the schema carries the semantics fully. The description neither elaborates on nor conflicts with it; baseline 3 applies when schema coverage does the heavy lifting.

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 restates the tool name/title almost verbatim — 'Staff and owner notification settings' names the resource but supplies no verb (get/list/update) and no scope statement. The only marginal addition over the title is the mention of 'staff and owner', which does not tell an agent what the call actually 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance whatsoever, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text how this differs from siblings such as panel_notifications, business_pos_settings, or business_integrations that also expose per-tenant configuration.

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