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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains that cost alerts return a firing condition expression and dedup config, while legacy alerts return thresholds. This clarifies response shape and handling of legacy data.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and then add necessary detail on return formats and usage constraint. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and differentiates legacy vs. current alerts. It could mention pagination or statuses, but the core context is well covered for a read-only list operation.

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% with both parameters (slug and type) already described in the schema. The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool lists all cost and budget alerts for an organization with their current status, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_alert and preview_alert.

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 says 'Only call this when the user explicitly asks about their current cost monitors or alerts,' providing strong when-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the purpose is distinct from creating or previewing alerts.

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