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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: newest-first ordering, that alerts carry ids only and never a name, the team-vs-workspace-wide visibility rule for a key, and that the response carries the exact total. This is genuine disclosure an agent cannot get from the 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?

Front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then the event contents and filtering. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the enum list restatement is arguably redundant with the schema.

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 documents the returned fields (event_class, severity, node_id/exposure_id, source kind/id, occurrence and write timestamps), plus ordering, filtering, pagination and permission scope. Sufficient for correct invocation, though value-domain meaning (e.g. what risk_red vs risk_amber implies) is left implicit.

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 100%, so the schema already documents limit, offset, severity and event_class with defaults and enums. The description's 'Filter by event_class or severity' and 'Paged with limit and offset' only restate what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (alert events of the workspace) plus ordering (newest first) and the shape of each event. An agent can tell it is a read/list endpoint. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as alert_deliveries or developments, so it stops short of a 5.

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 usage ('Filter by event_class or severity', paged) but never states when to choose this tool over alert_deliveries or company_events, nor any exclusion or prerequisite beyond the key-scope note. Usage must be inferred from the resource name.

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