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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: newest-first ordering, parity with the in-app Recent Alerts panel and email digest, type-specific payloads, dependency on enabled alert rules, daily detection cadence, and the Indie-plan requirement. No contradiction with 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?

The description is dense but efficient: it front-loads what the feed is and its ordering, then covers prerequisites, cadence, and polling behavior. Each clause carries operational information, with no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description gives the agent enough to call the tool correctly: event categories, payload contents, the dependency on enabled rules, daily detection, and plan requirements. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning event identifiers or how to paginate beyond `limit`, but those are minor for a read-only feed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by prescribing `since` for polling use, tying `type` to the alert rules the user has enabled, and indicating that payloads vary by event type. It does not discuss `limit` or `app_id`, but the schema already documents those fully.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a feed of detected alert events for the workspace, newest first, and enumerates the event types. It also indirectly distinguishes itself from rule-management tools by noting events only exist for alert types enabled via sonar_set_alert. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not directly contrast with the sibling sonar_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?

The description gives explicit operational guidance: poll with `since` to react programmatically, and expect detection to run once daily. It also states the prerequisite that alert rules must be enabled. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_alerts/delete_alert, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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