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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses partial-update behavior, the query.any validation requirement, the fact that it is not metered, and an account requirement with a signup link call. This adds meaningful behavioral context; annotations already cover read-only/destructive hints, so this is well above baseline.

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?

Four short, information-dense sentences with front-loaded purpose. No filler; each clause adds a distinct detail (purpose, partial update, query constraint, metering/account). This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (nested query/destination/threshold objects) and no output schema. The description covers the key usage constraints and prerequisites, but does not state what the tool returns (e.g., updated alert object), which would be expected given no output schema. So it's nearly complete but leaves that gap.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining partial update semantics (only provided fields change) and the query.any constraint, which is not evident from the query schema alone. However, most parameter meanings are already in the schema, so a 4 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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with resource 'Alert' and enumerates updatable fields (name, query, destination, threshold, status), clearly distinguishing it from alert_create, alert_delete, and alert_list. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear usage context: partial update semantics ('Only provided fields change'), a critical constraint on query (must include query.any), and metering/account prerequisites. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling list makes the update-vs-create distinction clear. This is more than minimum viable but not as explicit as naming alternatives.

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