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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a read-only operation, and the description reinforces this by only mentioning listing and retrieving assignments. No side effects or mutations are implied, and the description adds useful context about the includeAssignments parameter.

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 compact, using two clear sentences with no redundant information. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose or parameter behavior.

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 simple read-only listing tool, the description provides all necessary context: the resource being listed, the optional parameters and their effects, and the prerequisite of project context. No output schema is present, but none is needed for this straightforward operation.

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?

Both parameters are described beyond the raw schema: projectId is clarified as defaulting to the session context, and includeAssignments is explained as controlling whether assignments to environments, specs, and monitors are returned. This adds meaningful usage detail.

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 clearly states the tool lists alert policies for a project, using the specific verb 'List' and identifying the resource type. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_alert_policy and list_monitors.

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 notes that project context is required and explains when to set includeAssignments, including a practical hint about obtaining assignmentId for unassigning. It does not explicitly compare against every related sibling tool, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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