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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing plan-dependent behavior (free returns counts, Starter and up returns every row), keyless auth refusal, newest-first ordering, and the move since each alert fired. It also notes that only descriptive market data is returned. No contradiction with the readOnly/idempotent annotations 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by practical example queries and essential plan/auth details. The final sentence 'Descriptive market data only' is slightly vague but not wasteful. Overall, the prose is compact and well organized.

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?

The description covers auth expectations, keyless refusal, plan-tier output differences, ordering, and the notion of since-time filtering. Since an output schema exists, return structure does not need to be spelled out. Minor missing details like explicit sibling routing do not meaningfully hurt completeness.

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 schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, including since_ms defaults and the next_since_ms pagination hint. The description reinforces the time-based nature of the query but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource: alerts that fired on the user's own CoinLobster account, with ordering and move data. It distinguishes itself from market-wide sibling tools by emphasizing 'YOUR alerts' and the account-specific history. The title 'What fired for you' aligns well with the described behavior.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided ('what fired for me overnight', 'did my BTC alert go off'), and the signed-in connection requirement is stated clearly. It doesn't name specific alternative tools, but the account-specific scope and auth condition make when-to-use clear without extra exclusions.

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