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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: results are ordered newest first, and notably 'A detection is a shape with evidence, never a verdict,' which steers the agent away from treating findings as confirmed conclusions. It omits pagination/truncation behavior at the limit cap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what a detection is and how results are ordered; no wasted exposition. The trailing fragment 'Optionally for one agent' is slightly clipped but not enough to hurt materially.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so reasonably: it enumerates detection categories, the ordering, and the evidence-not-verdict nature of results. Only pagination/limit behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap for a simple two-param list tool.

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 50% (agent documented, limit not), so baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces that agent is optional and scoped to one, but says nothing about the limit parameter or the 25 maximum, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the resource (detections) and characterizes it concretely with example anomaly shapes (drain-shaped payments, retry storms, mint bursts), plus the ordering ('newest first'). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like since_last or metric_history, but the anomaly-feed purpose 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Optionally for one agent' signals that a single-agent filter is available but non-default. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to sibling tools such as since_last or metric_history.

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