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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already declaring the safety profile, the description only needs to add context; it clarifies that the returned configuration concerns grouping and holding back duplicates, but says nothing about the shape or fields of the returned settings.

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?

One tight sentence with no filler. It is slightly indirect, phrasing the settings' effect rather than the act of retrieval, but it is front-loaded and wastes nothing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent can learn what this returns; it hints at grouping/duplicate-suppression behavior but not the actual fields (window, thresholds, keys), leaving the agent guessing at what the settings contain.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing in the description is needed or missing on the parameter side.

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 read verb ("Show") applied to alert grouping settings, and characterizes what those settings control (grouping of related alerts and duplicate suppression). It is distinguishable from vs_workspace_alert_grouping_update by the read framing, though the sibling is never named.

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?

A reader can infer this is the read side of the grouping configuration, but the description gives no explicit trigger (e.g., before calling update, or to inspect current suppression behavior) and never references vs_workspace_alert_grouping_update as the counterpart mutation.

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