notification_request_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it lists possible status values, advises polling until SENT, and specifies an interdependency with another tool. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with purpose and required parameters. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, requirements, return values, polling, and a warning about a sibling tool.

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 no output schema, the description explains return statuses and provides polling and dependency guidance. It is sufficient for correct usage. Slightly more detail on the meaning of each status or the output structure could improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only names the required parameters ('notificationRequestId, caseFileId') without explaining their purpose or origin. This adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names in the schema.

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 'Checks the delivery status of a certified notification.' The verb 'checks' and resource 'delivery status' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like notification_certificate_get by explicitly warning not to call that tool while status is in certain states.

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 explicitly lists required parameters ('Requires: notificationRequestId, caseFileId'), provides polling guidance ('Poll until status is SENT or beyond'), and warns against using an alternative tool ('Do not call notification_certificate_get while status is CREATING, DRAFT, or IN_PROCESS'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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