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

The description reveals important behavioral context beyond the annotations: the operation is scoped to the signed-in user's alert, requires OAuth with the 'alerts' scope, and prompts anonymous callers to authorize. The annotations already cover destructiveness and idempotence, so the description adds complementary value without contradiction.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core action, a concrete example, a lookup alternative, and the auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler.

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 two-parameter removal operation with idempotent and destructive annotations, the description covers the action, alert types, parameter sourcing, alternatives, and authentication. A minor gap is that it does not describe the response behavior, but this is acceptable without an output schema and with idempotence already annotated.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces that store_id comes from an earlier result and gives the alert_type meaning, but does not need to add much beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a precise verb ('Removes') and a specific resource ('the signed-in user's alert for a store and alert type'), and clarifies the two possible alert types. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_store_alert and get_my_alerts.

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 an explicit natural-language use case ('stop alerting me about Nike cashback'), tells the agent to use get_my_alerts to find the required store_id and type, and in the schema notes the by-name alternative when only a store name is available. This is direct when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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