get_event_notifications

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that a connection must be selected first, which is useful. Yet it omits details like pagination behavior beyond the schema, what happens if no connection is selected, or the response format. As a read-only 'Get' operation, the risk is lower, but the description is still relatively thin.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and includes a separate actionable prerequisite. No words are wasted, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 simple tool shape (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but leaves some gaps. It doesn't explain what event notifications are, how they relate to event definitions or search_events, or what the return value looks like. The prerequisite about use_connection helps, but additional context about alternatives would make it more complete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (page, perPage) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('Graylog event notifications'), distinguishing it from other tools like get_event_definitions or search_events by name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools in the description text, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'Use use_connection first to select a connection.' This tells the agent when to use the tool relative to a specific sibling. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it is not fully explicit but still strong.

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