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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the call is free, it is scoped to watch_create-armed alerts, REST API alerts are excluded, and it returns descriptive market data only. There is no contradiction with 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 compact: three sentences that convey scope, included fields, cost, and an important exclusion. The phrase 'Descriptive market data only' is somewhat cryptic and could be clearer, but overall the description is front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential scope and exclusion. The main gap is not explicitly identifying the sibling tool for REST API-armed alerts or clarifying what 'descriptive market data only' means, but these are minor given the overall context.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description usefully clarifies what the response includes, but that is output-level information rather than parameter guidance.

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 indicates this tool returns alerts armed via watch_create for the current connection and lists the included fields (id, coin, trigger, band, webhook, active state, failure count). It also distinguishes from REST API-armed alerts, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'lists' and does not name a specific sibling as the alternative.

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 provides usage context by stating alerts created via watch_create are included and REST API-key alerts are not. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (e.g., my_alerts) or state when to prefer watch_list over other alert-related siblings, leaving some inference to the agent.

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