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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals a hidden dependency on a linked MarketPing account and the assistant's connect-offer behavior. The 'factual data only' clause further clarifies content constraints and what the tool will not return. This is substantial value beyond structured fields.

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, each earns its place: what the tool returns, the prerequisite/assistant behavior, and the data fidelity caveat. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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-only tool, it covers purpose, prerequisite, and content limitations. With no output schema, it could specify the return shape or possible 'alert status' values slightly more, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter documentation burden. The description's account-level dependency is the only relevant semantic context and is adequately covered.

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 identifies the resource: the companies the linked MarketPing account follows, along with their alert status. It avoids tautology by adding scope and content, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' and does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools by name.

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 provides a concrete prerequisite ('Needs a linked MarketPing account') and a data limitation ('factual data only'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as watchlist_add or recent_alerts. The intended use is implied rather than spelled out.

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