notification_request_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds context: polling behavior, status lifecycle, and cross-tool constraint. No contradiction 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?

Three sentences covering purpose, requirements, return values, usage pattern, and a constraint. Front-loaded with core action. No redundant information.

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 simple polling tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers functionality, prerequisites, return values, and correct usage pattern. Nothing critical is missing.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description mentions required parameters by name and states they are required, but adds no additional meaning or format details. Parameter names are self-explanatory, so minimal but adequate.

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?

Clearly states the tool checks delivery status of a certified notification. Specifies required parameters and enumerates possible status values. Distinguishes from sibling notification_certificate_get by providing a usage constraint.

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?

Explicitly lists required parameters (notificationRequestId, caseFileId), describes return values, advises polling pattern until status is SENT or beyond, and warns against calling notification_certificate_get during certain statuses. Provides comprehensive when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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