get_notification_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Check') and indicates the tool returns historical delivery information, but it does not disclose details such as return format, pagination, required permissions, or rate limits. For a simple getter, this is adequate but could be richer.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second gives a concrete use case. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 has two optional filter parameters and no output schema, but the description does not mention that filtering by monitor or subscription is possible, nor does it describe what the returned status/history looks like. This leaves gaps for an agent trying to use the tool effectively, though the core purpose is clear.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (monitor_id and subscription_id) with 'Filter by...' descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Check delivery history and status for webhook subscriptions.' This uses a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('delivery history and status for webhook subscriptions'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_webhook_subscription (creation) and get_order_status (order status).

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to verify notifications are being delivered or to diagnose delivery failures.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases. The guidance is clear and actionable.

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