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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description goes well beyond that: it defines the `on` flag semantics ('alerts actually go out on it'), notes that routing lists only channels that are on, and states a security boundary ('Never includes webhook URLs or secrets'). That is meaningful behavioral context an agent could not infer from the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question ('Who is told about what') and every clause carries information. The single sentence is dense with em-dashes and parentheses, making it slightly harder to parse than a short bulleted structure would be, but there is essentially no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-shape burden — and it does, covering frequency, severity, channel enablement/setup/pause state, muted sites, and check-type routing, plus an explicit exclusion of secrets. Nothing an agent needs before calling this is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate at the input layer and the baseline is 4. The description instead spends its detail on output semantics, which is the right allocation for a no-arg getter.

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?

Names a specific resource and enumerates exactly what the response contains: digest frequency, minimum severity, per-channel state, muted sites, and channel routing. An agent can distinguish this read-only settings tool from siblings like list_checks or site_overview without opening a 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?

Explicitly closes the loop on the write side — 'Changing them is done by the user in Alert settings' — which tells the agent there is no mutation counterpart to look for. The positive trigger (call this when you need to know who is notified and how) is implied rather than stated, so it stops short of a full 5.

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