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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the real-time nature, the alert categories, the per-alert content (severity, stage, risk score), and the free vs paid tier limitation. This goes beyond minimal expectations, though it does not describe update frequency, response format, or whether alerts are persistent.

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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds important context: what comes back, the structure of alerts, and the tier constraint. No waste or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it lists categories, alert contents, and tier limitations. However, it lacks specifics on severity/risk score scales, date ranges, or response size, which for a monitoring tool could be useful for the agent to interpret results. Still, it is largely sufficient.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns without needing parameter documentation. It adds value by describing the output structure (severity, stage, risk score) and tier 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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Get real-time supply chain disruption alerts') and resource ('global news intelligence and event detection'). It enumerates specific alert categories (port closures, trade policy changes, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on singular categories like get_labor_actions or get_natural_disaster_alerts.

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 provides clear context: this tool returns a broad real-time view of disruption alerts across multiple categories, useful as a high-level monitoring tool. It does not explicitly state when to use this instead of sibling tools, but the scope is evident from the category list, so usage is implied.

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