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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds what the agent actually gets back: labels, sample trace ids, and the investigation's written finding when root-cause analysis ran. That conditional return behavior is genuine context beyond the annotations, though permissions or failure modes are not addressed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage, parameter notes, and a worked example — a sensible order with little wasted text. The JSON example largely restates what the parameter notes already convey, which is mildly redundant but still aids invocation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be documented, yet the description still summarizes the key payload fields. Combined with the parameter notes and the list_alerts handoff, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: alert_id is defined as the id from list_alerts, and workspace is explained as an optional id, name, or `org-name/workspace-name` disambiguator with a stated default. Both parameters are fully specified.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (one fired alert), and explicitly delimits scope to a single alert including its root-cause finding when present. This clearly separates it from list_alerts and the trace-oriented siblings.

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?

"Use this after list_alerts to understand a single alert" gives a clear trigger and names the preceding tool in the workflow. It does not state when not to use it (e.g. versus get_agent_trace for raw trace inspection), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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