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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds value by noting the call is 'POST /v3/signls/paged (a read)', pre-empting confusion that a POST implies mutation. It also discloses page size cap, default, and the continuation_token continuation mechanism, though it says nothing about auth scope or rate limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and returned before filters and paging mechanics. Every clause carries distinct information (ordering, fields, filters, page cap, continuation, HTTP method).

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 no output schema, the description helpfully names the returned attributes (status, severity, category, history timestamps) and the continuation_token, so the agent knows what comes back and how to page. It stops short of describing the response envelope or total counts.

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% and each parameter already carries its own description and constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the filter categories in prose without adding format or syntax detail, matching the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Search SIGNL4 alerts (signls)'), plus ordering ('newest first'), returned fields, and filter axes. An agent can distinguish this paged-list tool from the singular signl4_get_alert and the sibling alter tools without opening a 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 filter axes (team, status, creation time, text, external id) tell the agent when this tool applies, and the paging sentence tells it how to continue. It never explicitly says when NOT to use it or names an alternative listing tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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