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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses domain behavior the annotations cannot: that alerts are field-level diffs against six named external directories, that they are gated on Active Sync connections, and that new_alerts counts unseen ones — a return-field detail with no output schema to carry it.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the definition of an alert, then the Active Sync precondition and the new_alerts note. The parenthetical field and platform lists are long but each enumerates real values an agent would otherwise have to guess, so the length earns its place.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns and does so partially: it defines an alert's structure and mentions new_alerts. It stops short of describing the overall response envelope (alert collection, cursor for continuation), which the 'cursor' parameter implies but the description never explains, leaving a small gap for a paginated list tool.

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%, with both 'query' (location name search) and 'cursor' (next_cursor from previous call) fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description implies location scoping through its talk of 'a location's listings' but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or pagination semantics for either 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 ('List Active Sync alerts') and then defines precisely what an alert is: a field-level mismatch between an external listing (Google Business Profile, Facebook, Bing, Apple Maps, Yelp) and the BrightLocal location data. No sibling tool covers this resource, so differentiation is not required, and an agent can tell exactly what it will get back.

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 supplies an important precondition — alerts exist only for locations with Active Sync connections — which tells the agent when results will be empty rather than broken. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over a broader listing tool, nor how to page through results or what to do with the cursor, leaving usage partially implied.

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