list_notification_history

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing of past alerts, but it omits details such as pagination, ordering, date range, or response shape. This is minimal transparency without contradicting any annotations.

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?

One compact sentence with a useful clarifying parenthetical; there is no filler and no redundant restatement of the tool name. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

With one required parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly adequate, but it lacks usage context and behavioral details such as pagination. The presence of similarly named sibling tools creates some selection risk, and the description does not address that risk.

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 single parameter account_id is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter syntax. It also does not provide any additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, matching the baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with resource 'notification history' and clarifies it as 'past alerts sent,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notification_policies and list_available_alerts. There is no ambiguity about what action this tool performs.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_notification_policies, list_available_alerts, or list_notification_webhooks. The description implies it is for past sent alerts but does not state exclusions or point to alternatives.

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