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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: free to call, result ordering, 100-item cap, and the specific fields returned. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations about the response.

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 front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then enumerates fields and use cases. It is slightly repetitive with 'Free to call' and 'Cost: free', but every other sentence adds value and the structure is logical.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states ordering, limit, returned fields, cost, and use cases. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the result 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, this is appropriately scored.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns your viral alerts'. It also specifies ordering ('active first, then recently ended'), a limit ('up to 100'), and enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling create/delete alert tools.

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 gives explicit use cases: auditing what is being watched, checking whether a third-party address has confirmed, and grabbing an alertId for delete_viral_alert. This provides concrete guidance on when to invoke this tool, even without a direct listing sibling.

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