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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by stating the OWNER/ADMIN/MANAGER + PRO+ visibility gate and that results are auto-filtered to items the caller can act on. It does not mention result ordering, counts, or any cap on the alert list.

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, then trigger, then access constraints, then filtering behavior - a sensible precedence order. The signal-category list is dense but earns its space by telling the agent what the payload contains; only the missing space after a comma marks it as slightly unpolished.

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 usefully enumerates the alert categories so the agent can anticipate the response, and the permission/filtering notes prevent wrong-surface calls. It stops short of describing volume, ordering, or what an 'empty alert set' means, which an agent might want for summarization.

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% and the single optional minSeverity parameter is already documented with an enum in the schema, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds nothing about severity semantics or default behavior.

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?

Specific verb (fetch) plus resource (active governance alerts for the caller's org), and it enumerates the five alert categories so the agent knows exactly what content comes back. It is clearly distinguishable from narrow siblings like list_org_risks or list_compliance_exceptions, which return one signal type rather than the aggregated cross-signal feed.

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?

Gives concrete invocation triggers: the dashboard 'Governance alerts' widget handoff and broad 'what needs my attention' questions. It implies the tool is for aggregate triage rather than deep-diving a specific risk list, but never explicitly names the sibling to use instead when the user asks about a single domain.

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