aruba_get_received_notifications_by_invoice_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. Description adds that the output is Base64-encoded. No contradiction, but no mention of what confirm_read does or any side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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 but lacks clarity and substance. It uses fragmentary language ('Sensitive notification Base64 read') and does not follow a clear structure. Important details like parameter explanations are omitted, making it under-specified rather than 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?

Despite having an output schema (per context) and only two simple parameters, the description fails to explain return format, how confirm_read affects behavior, or how this tool relates to similar tools. This is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly without additional context.

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%, but the description does not explain any parameter. It only mentions invoiceId in the URL path without defining it, and ignores confirm_read entirely. This leaves the agent without understanding what values to provide or the effect of the boolean parameter.

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?

Description mentions HTTP method, path, and 'Sensitive notification Base64 read', indicating it retrieves a Base64-encoded notification. However, it does not explicitly state that it reads received notifications by invoice ID, and it fails to distinguish from siblings like aruba_get_received_notifications_by_invoice_filename or aruba_get_sent_notifications_by_invoice_id.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools for notifications or invoices. No context about prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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