aruba_get_received_notifications_by_invoice_filename

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds that the notification is 'sensitive' and involves 'Base64 read', which adds some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not explain the effect of the 'confirm_read' parameter or any side effects.

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 very short (one sentence), but it is not well-structured. It starts with the endpoint path, which is useful, but the remainder 'Sensitive notification Base64 read' is cryptic and not front-loaded with the core action. It could be more informative without adding length.

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 presence of many similar sibling tools and the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, how the 'confirm_read' parameter affects behavior, or how this tool differs from 'aruba_get_received_notification_by_filename' or others. The description lacks sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 0%, yet the description does not mention any parameter (invoiceFilename or confirm_read). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but confirm_read's purpose and default behavior remain unclear. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 indicates a GET endpoint to read a notification by invoice filename, and mentions 'Sensitive notification Base64 read'. However, it is vague about whether it returns one or multiple notifications, and does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'aruba_get_received_notification_by_filename' (singular) or 'aruba_get_sent_notifications_by_invoice_filename'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The annotations hint at safety, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.

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