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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds the useful disclosure that each alert's active/paused state and last-fired time are included, which is return-content context with no output schema. No auth or rate-limit context, but nothing contradictory.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with return contents listed compactly. Minor vagueness in 'type, parameters' but no wasted text.

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 single-optional-param, no-output-schema read tool, the description supplies what annotations and schema cannot: the shape of the returned data. Only the language parameter's effect on output is left entirely to the schema.

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?

One optional enum parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the description adds nothing about the language parameter, so the schema carries it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (the key owner's alerts) and enumerates the fields returned (type, parameters, active/paused, last fired). It doesn't name a sibling, but the sibling set (bitcoin_zone, funding, tradeaudit_*) is unrelated, so differentiation is less critical.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'the key owner's own alerts' suggests this is the read path for the caller's alerts, and 'Read only' hints it is non-mutating. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative named.

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