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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is done. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the result includes a severity breakdown and total count, and the tool legitimately returns empty when no rule fired, which pre-empts a false 'no data / error' interpretation.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the edge case and parameter clarification. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description still covers scope, empty-result semantics and the identifier meaning. The only real gap is not pointing the agent at how to source a scan_id for this per-scan family.

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 0% and the single parameter is only typed as a string with the title 'Scan Id'. The description compensates partially by identifying it as the UUID of a ScanMalware scan, but it does not say where a scan_id comes from (e.g., search_scans/submit_scan) or what happens on an unknown id.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get intrusion detection (IDS) alerts') and narrows scope to one scan, distinguishing it from sibling per-scan getters like get_yara_by_scan and get_malware_by_scan. It also states the payload ('severity breakdown and total count'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns.

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 implies the usage context (alerts are scoped to a single ScanMalware scan) and notes the empty case, but it never says when to prefer this over neighbors such as get_yara_matches or get_scan_ioc, nor how to obtain a scan_id from other tools. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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