get_notifications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return type, the returned keys, and the effect of include_read. This is adequate for a simple read-only list operation, though it does not mention ordering, pagination, or whether read notifications are mutated.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and structured into Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, and the description explains both the parameter and the return shape. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for detailed return documentation. Minor missing details like sorting or pagination are not critical for this kind of list tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining include_read as 'Whether to include already-read notifications' and notes the default. For a single boolean parameter, this is sufficient semantic clarification.

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 and resource: 'Get patient portal notifications.' This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_clinical_document, list_invoices, and list_appointments, so an agent can identify the right tool without confusion.

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 resource name implies when to use the tool, but the description does not explicitly discuss usage context, exclusions, or alternatives. Sibling tools are unrelated enough that no conflict is likely, but there is no direct 'when to use' guidance beyond the name itself.

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