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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the underlying public API path (GET /v1/check-alerts/{checkId}), which confirms the read nature but discloses nothing about pagination behavior, default range, or result volume.

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?

Two short sentences: the scoping statement first, then the API mapping. No filler, no redundancy, front-loaded with the differentiating information.

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?

With five parameters (including pagination and a time range) and no output schema, the description should do more: it never mentions paging defaults, whether the range is optional, or what the returned alert records look like. It is adequate for routing but thin for correct invocation.

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%, with from/to/page/limit/checkId all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about filtering, timestamp format, or paging beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific verb (list) and resource (alert notifications) with an explicit scope qualifier ('for one specific check'). That scope qualifier is precisely what separates it from the sibling checkly_list_check_alerts, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either schema.

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 never says when to use this tool instead of checkly_list_check_alerts, nor does it name any prerequisite (e.g. needing a known checkId first). Usage must be inferred entirely from the scope phrase.

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