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

Annotations only cover the generic safety profile; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a 60-second polling cadence, webhook POST on fire, no fee/no funds moved, and that this config write is permitted in every permission_mode including observe. The 'moves no funds' claim is consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and alert types, then segmented into workflow and permission-mode notes that each carry real decision value. Slightly verbose on the fee/permission rationale, but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a 6-param write tool the description covers purpose, alert taxonomy, trigger mechanism, cost, workflow placement, and permission-mode behavior — everything an agent needs to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden. It usefully supplies the alert_type enum (absent from the schema), defines token as a mint address, and explains webhook_url's POST behavior, but leaves threshold (units/currency undefined), wallet_address, and caller_id completely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a price/position alert') plus the mechanism (checked every 60s by Celery beat). The alert_type enumeration and the token/webhook semantics let an agent distinguish this from siblings like list_alerts, set_liquidation_alert, and set_perp_tpsl without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly places the tool in a workflow ('MONITOR step -- arm after executing so a tripped level loops you back to the risk/execute phase') and points to get_trading_workflow for the larger flow. It does not, however, state when to prefer set_liquidation_alert or set_perp_tpsl over this generic alert, so sibling selection is only partly resolved.

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