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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely important behavior beyond that: the default status filter silently hides stopped and expired alerts unless explicitly requested. Return format is not needed since an output schema exists.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The default-filter behavior is front-loaded, and the value syntax follows immediately.

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 read-only list tool with full annotations and an output schema, the definition covers purpose, default scope, and status syntax. The main remaining gap is pagination/cursor behavior, which is left entirely to the schema's bare cursor field.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains only the status parameter's accepted values and default; the limit and cursor parameters (including how pagination works) are undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation for 1 of 3 parameters is insufficient.

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 (List) and resource (the connected account's alerts), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like create_alert, stop_alert, or reactivate_alert, but the read-only listing intent is unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear context: default returns only active alerts, and passing 'ACTIVE,STOPPED,EXPIRED' widens to all. That is actionable guidance for the status parameter. It names no exclusions or alternative sibling tools, which is the only gap.

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