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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond by explicitly stating "Read-only: it cannot mark anything fixed, muted or dismissed, and it returns no credentials," reinforcing the read-only nature. It also discloses response behavior: "The reply always states how many alerts matched, so a trimmed list is never mistaken for the whole list," adding value beyond the 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 moderately long but every sentence carries useful information: purpose, statuses, parameter defaults, read-only behavior, and response guarantees. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details. No redundant filler; each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what the reply contains (count of matched alerts). It covers all parameters, defaults, read-only constraints, and the meaning of statuses. For a list tool with 4 parameters and a single required token, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning: it explains the account_token source ("from the dashboard's 'Connect AI once' card"), clarifies the default status ("open plus returned"), and specifies search is plain-text. These details complement the schema definitions and help an agent use parameters correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Read this account's Boosthis alerts in the same words the dashboard uses." It clearly defines the tool's scope and distinguishes it from siblings like boosthis_jobs or boosthis_recent_samples by focusing on alerts. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 clear functional context (how to filter, defaults) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any sibling tools or exclusions. The usage is implied by the purpose, but no explicit guidance on when not to use it is provided.

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