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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It declares 'READ: available to any authenticated user' (auth trait), lists the returned fields, and explicitly notes that delivery destinations are not included. It stops short of mentioning error conditions or pagination, but for a simple fetch it is largely transparent.

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 organized in three distinct, purposeful blocks: purpose+auth, usage+return, and related tools. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical usage guidance is front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers authentication, invocation patterns, return content, and even points to the complementary tools for notification destinations, leaving no missing piece for an agent to call it correctly.

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 input schema already provides a 100% descriptive coverage for ruleId ('Optional rule id (UUID); omit to list every rule'). The description repeats this guidance and adds the return-field context, but does not offer new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource pairing ('Fetch the calling tenant's alert rules'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling write/delete tools like save_alert_rule and delete_alert_rule. It further clarifies the two invocation modes (list vs. single rule), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to fetch alert rules) and, crucially, when not to: it explains that notification destinations are out of scope and directs the agent to get_notification_destinations and set_notification_destinations with precise parameters. This is an exemplary 'when and when-not' guidance.

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