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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, mutating behavior; the description adds valuable context beyond that: the ranking side effect is explicitly denied, the auth scheme (Bearer hodds_...) is stated, and the failure mode (token_required) is named. It does not explain what happens when an alert is re-rated, though the idempotent hint covers much of that.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the action and its allowed values come first, the behavioral constraint second, and the auth prerequisite last. Every sentence carries information an agent would not get from structured fields alone.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the key extras: side-effect scope, auth, and the error surfaced on missing auth. Only the relationship to the similar ack_alerts tool is left unaddressed.

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 all four parameters, including the rating enum and the note's 500-character cap, are already documented. The description only restates the note length and rating values, adding no format or usage detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Marks one alert relevant or not_relevant') and adds a scope qualifier ('never changes ranking'). It stops short of naming how it differs from the sibling ack_alerts, so an agent must infer that rating is distinct from acknowledging.

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 implies when the tool applies (rating an alert's relevance) and rules out a false expectation by saying it never changes ranking. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to rate versus when to use ack_alerts or any other sibling, so the choice is left to inference.

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