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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: a hard 24-hour window, newest-first ordering, payload parity with the webhook feed, plan gating, and per-pull credit cost. Pagination/continuation behavior and result-size limits are left implicit, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then when to use it, then the cost gate. The parenthetical category list is dense but each item carries discriminative information about feed contents.

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 feed with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs to decide and call: scope, ordering, eligibility, and cost. The remaining gap is that 'same payload as the webhook feed' is uninformative to an agent that cannot see the webhook 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only partially compensates: 'last 24 hours' explains since_hours (and its 24 maximum), while 'newest first' weakly implies cursor-based continuation. The limit and severity parameters go entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 and scope: 'approved Prax alerts from the last 24 hours', enumerates the alert categories (exploits, attacker wallets, malicious contracts, phishing, sanctions), and specifies ordering ('newest first'). This is clearly distinct from the screening/analysis siblings, which operate on entities rather than returning a time-bounded feed.

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?

Gives explicit usage context ('Use for SOC / compliance monitoring and watchlist updates') plus eligibility and cost gating ('Business plan and above; 100 credits per pull'), which lets an agent decide whether a call is appropriate. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or pointing at an alternative over the screening tools, so it does not reach a 5.

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