aruba_get_sent_notifications_by_invoice_filename

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that the notification content is sensitive and Base64 encoded, which provides additional behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe pagination, limits, or the exact nature of the data returned.

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, consisting of two sentences. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail about parameters and usage. The structure is acceptable but lacks completeness for a tool with no parameter documentation in the schema.

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 two parameters, an output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the purpose of the parameters, when to use the confirm_read flag, or how the output relates to the input. The output schema exists, but the description should still provide context for the agent.

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 has 0% description coverage with no explanations for the two parameters (invoiceFilename and confirm_read). The tool description does not add any meaning to these parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them correctly.

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 includes the endpoint URL and states 'Sensitive notification Base64 read,' indicating it retrieves sent notifications in Base64 format. However, it does not specify whether it returns a single notification or multiple, and it fails to distinguish from similar sibling tools like aruba_get_sent_notification_by_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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other tools that get sent notifications.

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