notification_certificate_generate

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the 2-step nature of the report flow, the prerequisite state of notifications, and that the tool returns a reportId. This is useful behavioral context, though it does not mention side effects like duplicate report creation or whether generation is asynchronous.

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 compact and information-dense. Each sentence contributes meaning: what it does, when to use it, what prerequisites are needed, and what to do with the result. No filler or redundant content is present.

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 complexity, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter provenance, and the follow-up step, while an output schema exists for return values. It is not fully complete because some parameters and edge behaviors are unaddressed, but it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in the intended workflow.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate. It explains the source and purpose of requestId and notificationIds, and notes that notificationIds can be one or more. However, it does not clarify template, languageCode, additionalData, or embedAttachmentsEnabled, which remain unexplained despite being required or optional parameters.

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 'generates a delivery-certificate report for one or more notifications on a request', identifying the specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling notification_certificate_pdf_url_get by framing the output as a reportId used for a later URL retrieval step.

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 gives explicit usage timing ('Use once notification_request_status shows the relevant notifications have left their in-flight state') and names the prerequisite tools. It also directs the agent to the next step (call notification_certificate_pdf_url_get with the returned reportId), providing clear workflow guidance versus alternative tools.

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