Get notification history

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent nature, so the bar is lower. The description adds context about returning delivery outcomes and whole-account scope, and explicitly mentions the ability to detect silent failures, which is behavioral insight beyond the annotations. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the action and scope; the second gives concrete use cases and adds the nuance of silent failure detection. No fluff, efficiently front-loaded.

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 read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and use cases well. It doesn't mention time ranges or pagination, but these are likely covered by the output schema and parameters (page). The description sufficiently completes the context for an agent to decide when to invoke.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions the channel list (email, Telegram, webhook, web) matching the enum, and alludes to 'delivery outcome' which relates to the status parameter, but doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema. It does not compensate with extra details on parameter usage.

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 that it reads alerts sent by the account with delivery outcomes across channels. It names specific channels and the key use case of identifying silent delivery failures, setting it apart from sibling tools like get_incidents or monitor management tools.

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?

Explicitly provides two concrete use cases: answering whether the user was actually notified, and finding a silently failing channel. Also clarifies that it covers the whole account, not just one monitor, which helps differentiate from monitor-scoped tools.

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