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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation (listing) and restricts access to the owner, but doesn't explicitly state it's read-only or describe side effects/authorization failures. Slightly vague but generally adequate.

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 tightly-written sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage restrictions and sibling comparison. Each sentence adds unique value.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It provides essential context (owner queue, proactive vs reactive). Minor gap: no mention of handling empty results or pagination, but still mostly complete for a list tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already documents the parameter (authority_proof). The tool's description adds no further detail about the parameter, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it lists operators reporting Neon-402 errors, differentiating it from the sibling tool authority_network_persistence_health with a specific contrast (reactive vs. proactive). The verb 'list' is implied and the resource is 'neon alerts' (operators reporting store locked).

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 notes the tool is restricted to the Authority owner and provides a clear comparison with authority_network_persistence_health, guiding when to use each. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the differentiation is sufficient.

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