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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by enumerating the returned switches and their meanings, including edge cases like DNS failure coverage and anomaly detection. It stops short of describing the exact response object or any authorization requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 usage guidance and then lists returned fields in one dense but purposeful sentence. The enumeration is long, but it carries real semantic value because there is no output schema to document those fields.

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 a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly: it explains when to use it, when not to use it, what account-specific values are returned, and what each switch means.

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 takes no parameters, and the schema is empty. The description reasonably does not discuss parameter syntax because there is nothing to pass, matching the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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: it 'Returns their own switches for this account' for alert emails. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming list_webhooks for other alert channels and implying update_my_notifications is a separate action.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('when the user asks which alert emails they get... or before changing them') and an explicit when-not-to-use case with an alternative ('Not for webhooks or Slack... use list_webhooks'). This leaves little to inference.

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