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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true, so the description has to do more lifting. It labels the operation 'WRITE' and gives the POST endpoint, which is useful but largely restates the write annotation; it says nothing about permissions, duplicate-alert behavior, or what happens to existing alerts. The mode-specific semantics (interval required only for DateReminder) add some real behavior context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and the trailing 'WRITE. Sortly: POST /api/v1/alerts.' is compact. The single sentence is dense with parenthetical examples but no filler; a light trim of the nested parentheses would make it a 5.

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 7-parameter, 3-enum create tool with no output schema and only a destructive hint, the description covers the two creation modes and the type-dependent parameter pairings, which is the main thing an agent needs. It stops short of describing permission requirements or what the created alert returns (e.g., an id), which would round it out.

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 baseline is 3. The schema already explains that threshold_interval is 'Required for DateReminder; omit for Quantity' and that quantity_* methods pair with Quantity — the description largely repeats this. The only genuine addition is a concrete example ('threshold_method quantity_less_than with threshold_value 5').

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 (Create) and resource (alert), and splits the resource into its two supported flavors (Quantity stock alert vs DateReminder on a datetime custom field). It also gives the endpoint (POST /api/v1/alerts), so an agent can distinguish it from sortly_list_alerts without opening the schema. No explicit sibling naming, hence 4 rather than 5.

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?

Guidance is implicit: the parenthetical examples show which threshold_method/threshold_value pairings belong to Quantity and which fields belong to DateReminder, which helps pick the right invocation. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus sortly_list_alerts or how to verify an existing alert, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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