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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the gate criteria, the inclusion of a 'fade fragility veto', and three explicit non-checks that bound its verdict. It stops short of stating whether the check is purely local or triggers a fetch by default, and does not describe the pass/fail signal itself.

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?

Four tight sentences that lead with the gate definition and end with the second parameter's use. Dense domain jargon ('A+/B', '6/8', 'fade fragility') is efficient for its audience, though it packs several criteria into one sentence.

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 explained, and the behavioral scope is well bounded. However, with two parameters at 0% schema coverage and an unexplained relationship between alert_json and use_latest, plus undefined threshold semantics ('6/8'), the definition leaves gaps an agent must guess at.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains alert_json's role ('check that specific record without fetching another alert'), which also implies the default latest-alert fetch behavior, but use_latest is never mentioned and the default '' / true interaction is left ambiguous.

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 names a concrete evaluation task (a 'pro planning gate') and enumerates the exact criteria applied — valid A+/B record, score >= 6/8, 9:45–force-flat window, level and direction sanity — so the agent knows this validates an alert rather than fetching one. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like get_latest_alert or list_alert_history, leaving the boundary implied.

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 is implied by 'Pass alert_json to check that specific record without fetching another alert', which tells the agent how to target a specific record. The negative list ('Does not check subsequent stop-outs, live structure, or broker positions') scopes limitations but is not framed as when-not-to-use or as an alternative tool, so the agent must infer the correct invocation context.

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