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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description adds important behavioral details: 'Default shows only ARMED alerts (active, not yet triggered) -- exactly the set the Celery evaluators will act on' and 'include_triggered=True adds already-tripped and deactivated alerts.' It also notes 'limit caps at 200' and calls it a 'Free read,' providing cost and data-shape context.

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 short paragraphs: a one-line summary, a detail paragraph on coverage/defaults, and a workflow note. Each sentence adds information, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundancy or 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?

The description covers what the tool does, what alerts it includes, the default filter behavior, parameter effects, and workflow integration. It provides enough context for an agent to decide when to call it, and the output schema handles return structure.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does: 'include_triggered=True adds already-tripped and deactivated alerts' and 'limit caps at 200.' The required wallet_address is self-evident from 'a wallet's alerts.' However, caller_id is not mentioned, so it doesn't fully document all parameters.

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 opens with 'List a wallet's alerts -- what is currently armed. Free read.' This clearly identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming set_alert and set_liquidation_alert as producers and explaining it covers both alert types.

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 explicitly frames this as a MONITOR step: 'read before arming another alert so you do not duplicate a level that is already watched.' It also notes it 'Pairs with set_alert' and points to get_trading_workflow for broader context, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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