Get Notification Preferences

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds value beyond that by explaining the isUserOverride semantics — that the response signals whether a category follows the org default or a personal override — and by flagging that organization context is required. It doesn't contradict the annotations, and the added behavioral context is meaningful for interpreting the result.

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?

Two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first clause and the scope nuances following. Every sentence carries distinct information — purpose, scope behavior, response interpretation, and a prerequisite — with no filler or 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is read, how each scope behaves, what a key response field means, and the context prerequisite. The agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call this tool without further investigation.

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 the baseline is 3 with the schema already documenting the 'scope' parameter. The description earns an extra point by elaborating on what each scope value actually returns (own settings with isUserOverride interpretation vs. org defaults), adding behavioral meaning beyond the schema's brief 'Whose settings to read' phrasing.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair — 'Read notification preferences per category' — which precisely states what the tool does. It further differentiates the two scope modes ('user' vs 'org'), making the purpose unambiguous and implicitly distinguishing it from the sibling write tool update_notification_preferences.

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 gives clear, actionable guidance on which scope to select based on intent: 'user' for one's own settings, 'org' for organization defaults, plus the prerequisite that organization context is required. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope semantics effectively tell the agent how to invoke the tool correctly for each situation.

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