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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns aggregate counts (firms, countries) and a 'newest listing date', and it frames the tool as a discovery/overview step. It doesn't describe pagination or sorting, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool that is a minor 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first frames the question the tool answers, the second lists the return fields, the third gives usage sequencing. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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, read-only, output-schema-bearing tool, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, why an agent would call it, and how it connects to a sibling tool. The output schema covers return structure, so the description doesn't need to restate it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden. The description compensates by explaining what the output contains and how it should be used, which is the only semantic content an agent needs. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 ('list') with a clear resource ('FDA import alerts this register covers') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming list_alert_firms as the follow-up tool. It also states the exact fields returned, so an agent knows precisely what this tool produces.

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 explicitly instructs when to call this tool ('Call this first to see what can be answered') and tells the agent to use the resulting alert number for list_alert_firms. This is direct routing guidance that leaves no ambiguity about sequencing.

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