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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely useful context about continuous monitoring, webhook delivery, and the creation plan requirement. It doesn't elaborate on delete effects, but that side is already signaled by the destructive annotation.

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 two dense sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and a compact action grammar. Every clause earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a multi-action tool it covers the behavioral model, action routes, conditional parameter requirements, and the plan limitation, with an output schema available to explain returns. It doesn't address edge cases like duplicate alert creation, but annotations and the output schema absorb most of that burden.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by encoding cross-parameter contracts: create needs coin + trigger + webhook_url, funding_band needs band, and delete takes id. This is more meaningful than the flat per-field schema descriptions.

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 opening sentence states a clear behavior: alerts are continuously checked and posted to a webhook, and the action list defines list/create/delete. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby alert-related siblings such as my_alerts or signals, so it stops short of a 5.

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 action routing (list default, create with coin+trigger+webhook_url, delete by id) and the plan gate 'Starter and up to create', so usage context is implied. But it never explicitly says when NOT to use this tool or names an alternative for simpler alert viewing, leaving the agent to infer the decision boundary.

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