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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the PRO/tier gating and the 'default yesterday' behavior, but says nothing about auth needs (access_token is only in the schema), output shape, ordering, or result limits — significant gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 compact sentence with the scope stated up front and zero filler. The 'PRO.' prefix is terse but does front-load the tier requirement; only the em-dash aside is slightly compressed.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and default but leaves return values, ordering, and the auth requirement to the schema. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent must infer.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful detail that 'since' defaults to yesterday, but gives no date-format or token-handling guidance beyond 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?

States the resource (alerts) and the temporal scope (published since a date, default yesterday), which is specific enough to distinguish it from latest_alerts at a glance. It does not explicitly name or contrast the siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

'daily check for your agent' implies a polling/recency workflow, giving implied usage. It never says when to prefer alert_search or latest_alerts instead, and there are no exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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