get_notification_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at the inclusion of older notifications ('including older ones') but does not clarify auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or return format. There is no explicit statement that it is read-only, though the verb 'Get' implies it. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key constraint ('since a date') and includes the important nuance of 'including older ones'. There is minimal wasted text, and the structure is efficient.

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 minimal schema (2 params, no enums, no output schema) and the existence of a highly related sibling (get_notifications), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how 'timeline notifications' differ from regular notifications, what 'including older ones' implies about ordering or limits, or when this tool is the appropriate choice. An agent would likely need additional information to use it correctly in 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does provide the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) for the required date_from parameter, which is helpful. However, it completely ignores the optional subdomain parameter, leaving its meaning and usage undocumented. With two parameters and only one partially described, this is a significant gap.

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 action (Get) and the resource (timeline notifications) with a specific date constraint, providing a clear purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling tool get_notifications, which likely serves a similar function, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention get_notifications or any other sibling, nor does it explain any conditions that would make this tool preferable. There is no context about whether this is for historical retrieval vs. current notifications.

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