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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent, closed-world), so the description needn't restate those. What it should add — whether repeat creation duplicates alerts, what schedule/notify_when control, delivery behavior of the email — is absent, and "saves the screen on display" adds little beyond the title.

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?

A single short sentence with the app-only qualifier front-loaded, so there is no bloat. The brevity, however, comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing; there's no structure to speak of.

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?

For a mutating tool with 6 undocumented parameters, 5 of them required, no output schema, and multiple alert-related siblings, one sentence is far from sufficient. An agent could not construct a valid call or anticipate results from this description alone.

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% across 6 parameters (5 required), so the description carries the full burden — and it documents none of them. It gives no meaning for name, market, schedule, notify_when, or why both session_id and query_id are required.

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?

"Saves the screen on display as an email alert" conveys the resource (an alert) and roughly the action, and "App only" distinguishes it from the sibling create_alert. But "saves the screen" is vague phrasing for a create operation, and it's unclear what "screen on display" means relative to the session_id/query_id inputs.

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?

"App only" implies a context restriction and hints at a boundary with create_alert, but the description never states when to call this versus create_alert, update_alert, or qanvo_app_alert_update. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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