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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description isn't burdened with that. It earns credit by adding scope the annotations can't convey: the lookback window (last seven days for cleared alerts) and the coverage caveat that only servers with metrics enabled appear.

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?

It leads with the answer to 'what does this return' before listing examples and caveats. The long parenthetical enumeration is dense but each example narrows the concept of an alert and earns its place; no sentence is 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, no-output-schema tool the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, the time window, the coverage limitation, and when to reach for it first. Nothing material is left open.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading or absent parameter guidance is present.

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 names a specific resource (server alerts) and enumerates exactly what qualifies as an alert — disk filling, memory/load pinned, failed service, restarting container, expiring certificate, offline server. That enumeration distinguishes it from sibling server_metrics, which returns metric series rather than problems.

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 gives explicit entry-point guidance ('Start here when asked how the servers are doing'), which is strong usage context. It does not, however, name the alternative tool to use when the agent wants raw metrics or historical data, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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