get_notification_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('JSON array of lean notification events'), details all filter parameters, and explains defaults. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but it can be inferred from the name and context.

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 well-organized with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, making it easy to scan. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise by grouping similar parameters.

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 tool has 9 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the necessary context: purpose, all parameters, return type. It could mention pagination behavior more explicitly (limit/offset defaults and usage) and potential error scenarios, but for a list tool, it is fairly 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates. It provides clear explanations for each parameter, including defaults, allowed values (e.g., category options), format (YYYY-MM-DD), and usage notes (e.g., 'only needed with multiple schools' for school param).

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 resource ('notification history'), with a specific time constraint ('since a given date'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that retrieve other types of data (e.g., get_absences, get_grades).

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 implies usage through parameter explanations (filters, defaults), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks guidance on scenarios like retrieving specific notification types vs. using other tools.

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