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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so "Read only" is a restatement. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: that pending-payment alerts created by create_alert appear in the same list with payment links, and that this only covers the caller's own linked account.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoping, with no filler or marketing language. The enumeration of returned fields is slightly redundant with the existing output schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: whose alerts, what is included, and the cross-tool relationship to cancel_alert. No meaningful gap remains for this complexity level.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema and description are consistent on this being a no-argument call.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ("List the alerts turned on") and scopes it to "the person's own linked PermitSnag account," which separates it from create_alert and cancel_alert. It also enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets 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?

It explicitly ties itself to siblings: the returned alert id is what cancel_alert needs, and alerts saved by create_alert awaiting payment are also included. That is strong routing context, though it never states an explicit "do not use this when..." condition.

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