get_notifications

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'get list' and does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting, authentication requirements, or response format. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral traits (e.g., defaults, filtering logic) are absent from the description.

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?

A single, concise, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. No redundant wording or filler.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only states the basic function and omits important context like what the list response contains, whether pagination is required, or any usage caveats. Despite schema parameter descriptions, the overall context is insufficient for an agent to fully understand invocation and expected results.

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 the schema documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, but does not need to; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'list of notifications', with scope 'by type from the public procurement system'. It distinguishes itself implicitly from sibling tools (detail, categories) but does not explicitly name them.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. The phrase 'by type' implies a filtering use case, but there is no mention of when to prefer this over get_notification_detail or get_notification_categories.

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