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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses scope (only watched addresses) and a dependency on the watch list being populated, but says nothing about permissions, read-only safety, ordering, or result volume for a listing operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the scope and followed by the usage cue and prerequisite. Efficient, though the 'Use when checking what needs attention' clause is mildly generic.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers scope and the watch-list prerequisite but omits any explanation of the 'status' filter, leaving a real gap in how to invoke 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 sole parameter 'status' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so the agent has no guidance on what values are valid or what filtering it performs. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('alerts') with an explicit scope ('scoped to this principal's watched addresses'). Sibling tools like list_watched and watch_demo_set are distinguishable, though the description does not name any alternative directly.

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 provides a clear usage context ('Use when checking what needs attention') and a concrete prerequisite that routes to a sibling ('empty watch list → call watch_demo_set first'). It lacks any explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative list tool.

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