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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, but the description adds critical operational context: the upstream 500-row cap, meta.upstream_cap reporting, severity_label added server-side, pagination over post-filter results, and Laravel-enforced tag-scope. This goes beyond annotations and fully discloses the tool's constraints and server-side behavior.

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?

Although lengthy, the description is tightly structured into labeled sections (default mode, drill-down, filters, caps, pagination, permissions, examples) with no fluff. Every sentence adds operational value, and the critical constraints are front-loaded before the examples. This is appropriate for a tool with 11 parameters and two distinct modes.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return structures, and it does so thoroughly: default mode returns per-incident lifecycle timestamps plus aggregated outlet_types[], dispatch_count, failed_count, and computed status; drill-down returns the per-outlet dispatch ledger. It also covers pagination, caps, and filtering semantics, leaving no critical gap for correct usage.

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%, but the description still adds significant semantic value: it explains that incident_id switches to drill-down mode and is alert_history.id not alert_id, that hours applies against last_event_at, that status is computed from resolved_at, and that filters are AND-combined. These details are not present in the schema's per-field descriptions, making the description indispensable for correct invocation.

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 states it is an authoritative stream of alert incidents with a default listing mode and a drill-down mode for per-outlet dispatch logs. It names the underlying tables and distinguishes itself from the sibling alerts_list by describing the incident lifecycle and aggregation, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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 explicitly explains when to use default mode versus drill-down mode (e.g., 'Use this for did the email actually go follow-ups'), lists filters, and notes the upstream 500-row cap so the agent can warn users about truncation. It effectively guides the agent to the right mode and parameter combinations for common questions.

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