get_event_notification

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the operation (get) without disclosing behavioral details like idempotency, rate limits, or response structure. Minimal transparency beyond the action.

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?

Single sentence, 12 words, front-loaded with verb and resource. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could hint at the response format, but given the low complexity, it is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (1 parameter with description 'Event-notification UUID'). The tool description adds 'by ID' but no extra semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'single event-notification by ID', with 'platform notification v2' distinguishing from other notification types. Among siblings like list_event_notifications and get_self_notification, it uniquely identifies this tool's specific purpose.

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 use for retrieving a specific event notification by ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings (e.g., list_event_notifications for multiple, create/update/delete for mutations). No when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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