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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral detail: the tool is free, it is a status lookup (read-only by implication), and it enumerates the possible return states ('pending' or 'triggered') plus the triggering price/time. It does not mention auth requirements or error behavior for an unknown/expired alertId, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the input, then the return contract. The leading 'Free.' earns its place as a cost signal and nothing is redundant.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies exactly what is missing elsewhere: the return shape ('pending'/'triggered' plus triggering price/time) and the cost. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 100% and the schema already documents alertId as the value returned by create_price_alert, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the structured field. The baseline of 3 applies for a single fully-documented parameter.

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 ('Check the status of a previously created price alert') and scopes it by alertId, which clearly separates it from the sibling create_price_alert and from the price/security/read tools. An agent can select it without opening the 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 phrase 'previously created' plus 'by its alertId' establishes the precondition that an alert must already exist via create_price_alert, giving clear context for when the tool applies. It does not state explicit exclusions or name a competing sibling to avoid, so it stops short of a 5.

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