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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the result is a snapshot of currently firing alerts, covers every accessible site, and is sorted with the worst overrun first. It does not describe side effects, but nothing in the description suggests mutation.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the key idea, then adds scope and ordering. Every word contributes information, with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter read-style tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it says what is returned, the scope, and the ordering. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool without further clarification.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so schema coverage is effectively complete. There are no parameter semantics for the description to add; baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 identifies the resource ('alerts'), their state ('currently firing'), the scope ('across every site this token can see'), and the ordering ('worst overrun first'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like phpray_errors or phpray_slow_queries, which cover different data.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: use this when you want currently firing alerts across all sites the token can see. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternatives, but its scope and resource are specific enough for a zero-parameter tool.

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