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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the HTTP endpoint mapping, which helps with debugging, but says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or result ordering that would go beyond the annotations and schema.

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 compact sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by the endpoint reference. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

Without an output schema, the description could say more about what an alert record contains or how pagination terminates, but with 100% schema coverage, zero required params, and a readOnly annotation, the essential contract is conveyed.

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 the schema already documents limit, cursor, customer_id, subscription_id, and external_customer_id. The description restates the customer/subscription filtering idea but omits external_customer_id and the pagination parameters, adding no format or semantics 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 a specific verb (List) and resource (usage/spend alerts) and even names the upstream endpoint (GET /alerts). No sibling in the toolset covers alerts, so there is zero ambiguity about which tool retrieves alert records.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by customer or subscription' implies when the filters would be applied, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus, say, orb_get_customer_costs or orb_get_subscription_usage, and no statement of preconditions or exclusions.

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