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

With annotations already covering the safety profile, the description still adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond them: nothing is recorded, no goal advances, nobody is thanked, and the alert auto-expires after a few seconds. This is exactly the ephemerality and side-effect disclosure an agent needs for a fire-and-forget action.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then the non-persistence caveat, then the auto-expiry. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and there are no parameters to document. The description fully covers the only thing an agent could get wrong: assuming this produces a real support event.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. No misleading parameter language is present.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Fire a test alert') plus the exact reason ('so the creator can see where it lands in OBS while setting up'). It immediately distinguishes itself from the real support flow by stating 'It is not a real support', which separates it from siblings like approve_support or list_pending_supports.

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 context is clear: it is for overlay setup/positioning in OBS, not for real support events. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, but the 'not a real support' framing effectively tells the agent when this is the wrong choice for actual support handling.

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