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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read only, saved data' is largely redundant with structured data. What the description does add is genuinely useful and not captured by annotations or an output schema: the ordering rule ('critical first'), the composition of the payload (open + 7-day resolved), and that each alert carries a rationale and a fix. It does not mention freshness/pagination limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 dense sentences, zero filler. The primary payload (the hourly live check and its freshness) is front-loaded, with the alert content and safety note following in descending importance.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so well — freshness, sections, sort order, and per-alert content. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers both parameters, so the only real gap is the absence of routing guidance versus sibling tools.

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 both parameters (brand_id defaulting to the most recently updated brand, and include_resolved defaulting to true) are fully documented in the schema. The description only obliquely gestures at include_resolved via 'alerts resolved in the last 7 days' and adds no syntax or edge-case guidance. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource (the hourly live check / alerts) and enumerates exactly what comes back: last run time, today so far, open alerts sorted critical-first, and alerts resolved in the last 7 days. An agent can tell it is an alert-status read rather than a fix-list or performance tool. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with near-siblings such as get_today or get_fix_list.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description frames it as the 'live check' read and notes it is read-only saved data, which signals when it is appropriate. However, it never names an alternative or a condition that would route the agent elsewhere (e.g. get_fix_list for remediation actions), leaving the when-to-use decision to inference.

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