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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds ordering ('Newest first'), per-item content (receipts link and, when available, the receipts page), and the default page size. It stops short of stating the maximum limit of 50 or offset behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and the qualifying condition, with ordering and default volume appended. Every clause carries information, though the defining clause is long enough to read as slightly run-on.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, and the description still sketches item contents and ordering. For a read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool the definition is essentially complete; only the limit bounds and offset pagination semantics are left unaddressed.

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 50%: offset is documented in the schema, limit is not. The description compensates partially by stating 'Default returns 10', which explains limit's default, but it never mentions the 1-50 bounds or what limit actually caps. Marginal value over 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource (list alerts) and goes further by defining precisely what qualifies as an alert: a named rate, engine, or question type whose movement between two consecutive comparable scheduled runs has non-overlapping 95% intervals. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_displacement or compare_runs without opening another 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?

The opening 'Use this to list alerts' plus the statistical trigger condition gives clear implied usage context, but it never names an alternative or a when-not condition (e.g., use compare_runs to inspect a specific pair of runs directly). Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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