test_notification

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that notifications are real but marked as test, rate-limited, and verifies pipeline. It does not detail side effects like whether actual users receive the notification, but the test context and rate limit provide adequate transparency.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Each clause adds essential information: action, test marking, rate limit, pipeline verification. Perfectly concise.

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 test tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, rate limit, and testing nature. It lacks response format or error handling, but the simplicity makes it adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so schema already documents parameters. The description adds value by stating defaults (source defaults to 'platform', event_type defaults to gateway sample), which aids agent understanding beyond 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 triggers a real test notification, marks audit row with is_test=true, and verifies the full pipeline. The verb 'trigger' and resource 'test notification' are specific, and the details distinguish it from siblings like create_notification_rule or list_notifications.

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 mentions rate-limiting (1/min per wallet) and end-to-end verification, implying use for testing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool compared to alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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