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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: results are newest first, rendered as sentences, and facts are frozen at fire time so renaming or deleting a rule does not rewrite history. This is meaningful behavioral transparency.

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 terse sentences that front-load the core purpose, scope, ordering, and output format, then add an important retention behavior. 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 read-only list tool with annotations, a 100%-covered input schema, and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what is returned, the ordering, the per-MCP scope, and a subtle historical behavior that an agent could not infer from the schema alone.

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%, and both parameters are already well documented in the input schema, including the mcp name/id matching behavior and the default limit of 50. The description adds only minor semantic context, such as 'on one MCP' and 'newest first,' which reinforces but does not significantly extend what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb plus resource: it lists alert firings for one MCP, newest first, as sentences. It also clarifies that these are firing history records, not the alert rules themselves, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like list_alerts without naming them directly. It stops short of an explicit sibling comparison, so it does not fully earn 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 scope 'on one MCP' implies the intended use case: retrieve firing history for a specific MCP. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_alerts, nor does it mention any exclusions or contexts where another tool is preferred.

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