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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and side-effect behavior. The description adds 'Result carries provenance,' which is a useful output trait not captured in annotations, but it does not disclose other behaviors such as real-time latency, pagination, or rate limits. Since annotations carry most of the burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the resource and alert types, then covering filtering and output. Every clause carries information, with no fluff or repetition. It is efficient and well-structured.

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, the description mentions provenance but does not explain the result shape, severity labels, or how the 'plain-English read' is formatted. Given the tool's moderate complexity (three optional parameters) and rich annotations, the description is functional but leaves gaps about the return structure that an agent might need for correct interpretation.

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%, so each parameter already has an explanation. The description only restates the filtering concept ('Filter by coins or severity, cap with limit') without adding syntax, defaults, or format details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high coverage, with minimal added value.

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 identifies a specific resource (live alert queue) and lists the types of alerts (funding extremes, signal fires, consensus flips), which clarifies what the tool returns. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, but the term 'live alerts' distinguishes it from analytics, leaderboards, and other listed tools. The verb is implied (get/list), but the intent is clear.

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 mentions filtering by coins or severity and capping with limit, which is parameter usage, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tape_market_signals or tape_market_pulse. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing is given, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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