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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the alerts are merged and time-sorted, they are operational (not user-configured), and the tool is not metered. It also discloses an account requirement. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the exact return shape, but with no output schema and a simple list tool, the description carries the behavioral burden well.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is in the first sentence, and the exclusions and alternatives follow immediately. Every sentence earns its place — scope, alternative routing, metering status, and account requirement are all covered without waste.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool returns, how results are ordered, what it is not, and the account prerequisite. The only missing element is a description of the output record structure, but with no output schema and a simple alert list, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 description coverage is 100% — the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema with type, default, min, max, and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('OPERATIONAL alerts'), and a precise scope ('Prowlo's own failures: errored crawl runs and failed webhook deliveries'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the user's configured Alerts and names the sibling tool (alert_list) for that alternative. This is a model of sibling differentiation.

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 says when to use this tool ('Read recent OPERATIONAL alerts') and when not to ('NOT the user's configured Alerts: for those, use alert_list'). It also notes the tool is 'NOT metered' and requires a free Prowlo account, giving the agent clear context for invocation. This is explicit when/when-not guidance with a named alternative.

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