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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses what is excluded for security (no webhook URLs or secrets) and explains field semantics (plan-included, configured, paused, `on` = alerts actually send).

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 'Who is told about what' and packed into one dense but purposeful sentence; the parenthetical enumerations all carry information, though the density makes it slightly hard to scan.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: what channels exist, how their state is represented, which sites are muted, how routing works, and what is deliberately omitted.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description still adds value by explaining the shape of the returned settings even though parameter semantics are not applicable.

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 is highly specific about the resource: frequency/severity/channels/mutes/routing of alert settings, which an agent can distinguish from update_alert_settings or get_notifications. The closing line ('Changing them is done by the user in Alert settings') is slightly confusing because a sibling update_alert_settings exists, which weakens the read/write routing a bit.

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?

Usage is implied (read the current alert configuration) and there are useful scope exclusions ('never includes webhook URLs or secrets', 'only channels that are on'), but there is no explicit when-to-call-this-vs-update_alert_settings guidance, and the sibling mutator is not named.

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