remind_get_notification_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the interpretation of the `canManage*` flags and the constraint that a subscriber account cannot change most preferences, which is material to how an agent acts on the result.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is retrieved and followed by the permission caveat. Dense but every clause carries information — the only slight drag is the long enumeration in the first sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value meaning itself, and it does: it names each preference group, the transport types of registered devices, their enabled state, and how to read the canManage flags. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description instead documents the shape of the returned data (preferences, devices, enabled state, canManage flags), which is useful even though it strictly concerns output rather than inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get notification settings') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: reply/announcement-copy/incoming-call preferences plus registered email/sms/apns devices with enabled state. That is far more specific than a restatement of the name, but it never names or contrasts with the natural sibling (remind_set_notification_devices), so it stops short of sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the note that `canManage*` flags show which preferences the account may change hints that mutation belongs elsewhere, but the description never says when to call this versus remind_set_notification_devices or any other sibling. No explicit preconditions or exclusions are given.

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