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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: predefined rules can be toggled but not created/deleted, the semantics of the `ref` identifier, and the caveat that an empty list may reflect alert-manager not yet reaching the workspace.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then layered detail; each paragraph adds distinct information. The trailing JSON example with empty arguments is somewhat redundant for a zero-required-param tool, costing a point but not much.

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?

Complete for this tool. Return values are covered by the output schema, and the description still supplies the interpretive context an agent needs (rule categories, ref semantics, empty-list meaning) to act on results 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 coverage is 0% and the schema only marks `workspace` as a string with default "", so the description carries full burden. It explains the param accepts an id, name, or `org-name/workspace-name` disambiguator, and that it defaults — fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 and resource ('List every alert rule in the workspace') and immediately distinguishes the two categories it returns (predefined vs custom). Clear enough that an agent can tell it apart from siblings like list_alert_channels and list_alerts.

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?

Gives strong context: it explains the `ref` column is the input to update_alert_rule/delete_alert_rule, and that an empty list may just mean detection hasn't started. It never explicitly states when to prefer this over list_alerts or list_alert_channels, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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