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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: each entry carries canAcknowledge and canResolve flags indicating whether the acknowledge/resolve siblings can be applied to it. It stops short of describing the response envelope or pagination metadata.

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 with the scope front-loaded, then the per-entry capability flags, then filtering/pagination. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and there is 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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the entry-level fields agents will act on (canAcknowledge, canResolve) and the filter options. Remaining gaps: whether the response includes total counts or a next-page indicator, and what the page parameter means relative to limit.

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 67%: limit and status are documented in-schema while page is undocumented everywhere. The description restates the status values and mentions paginating, adding only modest clarity over the schema, so the baseline 3 for schema-does-the-work applies with a small penalty for the undocumented page parameter.

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 plus the exact scope: alerts for the authenticated organization, made up of alert-rule alerts plus incident, server and notice history. That enumeration distinguishes it from adjacent siblings such as vs_incidents_list and vs_alert_rules_list without needing to open schemas.

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 second half of the description explains how to slice the result (status filter, pagination), which implies usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance. With ~90 siblings including vs_incidents_list and vs_alert_rules_list, the description never says why an agent would pick this aggregate list over those narrower ones.

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