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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: per-target checks file one alert per target, affectedUrls holds that single URL, HTTP status lives in the message, and for HTTP_404 the pageUrl is the failing URL. That is useful non-obvious domain detail, though read-only safety, auth, and pagination caps are not otherwise characterized.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and return shape, then moves to filtering, in three efficient sentences with no filler. It is dense but every clause carries information.

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 7-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return fields and the per-target alert semantics an agent needs. It could be more complete about ordering or total counts / pagination metadata, but nothing essential to calling it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents page, size, type, status, severity, crawlId, and pageUrlContains. The description reinforces `type` with concrete values but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('List individual alerts for a crawl run') and enumerates the returned fields (pageUrl, message, detail, affectedUrls). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling alert-adjacent tools like get_crawl_issues or get_crawl_issue_summary, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between 'alerts' and 'issues'.

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?

It gives practical invocation guidance ('Pass `type` to drill into one issue type', 'Pass a filter or pagination param'), including concrete type examples. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing relative to get_crawl_issues or get_crawl_issue_summary, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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