get_per_record_notifications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation ('取得します'), implying it's read-only, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality.

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 read operation with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. With no output schema and no annotations, it should ideally mention the return format or data structure. The description covers the basic 'what' but misses the 'what you get back' aspect that would help an agent understand the tool's output.

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%, so both parameters (app_id and preview) are already documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, such as example app_id values or when preview mode would be useful. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the documentation work.

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 ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and the resource ('kintoneアプリのレコード単位の通知設定' - per-record notification settings for a Kintone app). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_notifications' by specifying 'per-record' scope, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_reminder_notifications' or 'update_per_record_notifications'.

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 like 'get_notifications' or 'get_reminder_notifications'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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