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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses state mutation, that alerts fire out-of-band (Telegram/Discord) without the agent staying awake, per-action pricing ($0.001 vs $0.002 wildcard), balance requirements, TTL auto-expiry, and the shape of error payloads. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations would otherwise supply.

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?

Labeled sections (BEHAVIOR / PRICING / ACTIONS / USAGE / ERRORS) front-load the mutation and async semantics before the per-action breakdown. Every line conveys distinct information — no restatement of the name or filler prose.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what `create` returns (alert_id plus expiration) and what `list` returns (active triggers, IDs, remaining TTLs). Combined with auth, pricing, capacity, and error behavior, an agent has everything needed to invoke this five-parameter mutation tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by mapping parameters to actions — 'create' requires `command`, 'cancel' requires `alert_id`, and 'list'/'clear_all' explicitly ignore them. That action-parameter interaction is not expressed anywhere in the schema and prevents misfires; only the `destinations` and `ttl_minutes` routing details are left entirely to the schema.

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 family (inject/remove triggers) and resource (in-memory execution triggers in the C++ engine), then enumerates the four concrete actions with what each does. An agent can immediately tell this apart from `market_data` polling and `calc_engine`.

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 routes the agent: 'Use this tool to establish asynchronous monitoring instead of polling `market_data`.' It also states the prerequisites (authenticated API key, guests get an auth error) and the constraint (plan capacity limits), so when-to-use and when-it-will-fail are both covered.

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