storekit__get_notification_history

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's job is supplementary context, which it partly provides by disclosing that failed deliveries are included. It omits operationally relevant traits for this API, such as rate limiting and how far back history is retained, so it adds only modest value beyond the annotation.

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 tight sentences: the capability first, the diagnostic use case second, with zero filler or repetition of the tool name. Every clause earns its place.

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 query tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema to explain, the description covers what it does and when to reach for it. It leaves unstated the default date window and whether results are paginated, which are minor gaps for a diagnostic history call.

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 all six parameters (app, start_date, end_date, environment, only_failures, notification_type) are already documented in the schema with units, defaults, and filtering behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve App Store Server Notification delivery history') and adds scope detail ('including failures'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling history tools such as storekit__get_refund_history and storekit__get_transaction_history without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use case: 'Use to debug a webhook endpoint that is missing events.' That tells the agent the diagnostic context in which this tool beats a generic history lookup. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g. storekit__request_test_notification) or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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