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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a cost ($0.02 USDC on Base), which is valuable. It also mentions the optional filter. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned, rate limits, or any side effects. For a tool that retrieves records, missing this information is a gap.

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 a single concise sentence with a cost note, front-loading the purpose. Every word contributes, though the word 'Open' is vague and the PRG phrase is potentially misleading. It is appropriately short but could be more precise.

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?

Given there are no annotations, no output schema, and only two simple parameters, the description still leaves major unknowns: what exactly is a 'risk alert', what fields are returned, how pagination works, and whether the 'asset' filter is actually applied despite the 'PRG' phrasing. The description does not fully explain the tool's behavior or output.

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 description adds no meaning to the 'asset' parameter beyond its enum values; it even introduces ambiguity by saying 'PRG risk alert records' while the asset parameter allows multiple assets. For 'since', the description restates what the schema already says ('newer than a timestamp'), adding no new semantic value. The cost mention is not parameter-related.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('PRG risk alert records') and mentions an optional filter, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_regime or get_risk_snapshot. However, 'Open' is a bit ambiguous (could mean fetch, retrieve, etc.) and the term 'PRG' is not defined in context, though the asset enum includes PRG. Still, it clearly indicates the tool's purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs. siblings. It mentions the optional timestamp filter but does not specify when to use this tool over others, nor does it state any prerequisites or consequences. Only implicit that it's for risk alerts, which is not enough.

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