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

Annotations only give destructiveHint=true, so the description must carry behavioral weight; it does disclose the operation is a WRITE and names the backing endpoint (POST /api/v1/alerts). It does not cover permissions, alert-count limits, idempotency, or error behavior, which is a meaningful gap for a 7-param mutation.

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?

The core sentence is front-loaded and dense but readable, with the write flag and endpoint trailing as short fragments. The heavy parenthetical nesting of method names makes it slightly harder to scan than a bulleted breakdown would be, but there is no filler.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers both operational modes and the required field pairing well enough to call it correctly. Remaining gaps are behavioral (auth, limits, failure modes) rather than structural.

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 coverage is already 100%, but the description adds cross-field coupling semantics that the flat schema does not express as clearly: which threshold_method values pair with which type, and that DateReminder needs custom_attribute_id plus an interval unit. The concrete example (quantity_less_than with threshold_value 5) is genuinely useful context.

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 ('Create a stock alert on an item') and immediately enumerates the two supported alert shapes. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like sortly_list_alerts or sortly_create_item, which target different resources.

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 tells the agent how to choose between the two modes (Quantity vs DateReminder) with concrete method examples. It does not name any alternative tool or state when-not-to-use (e.g., use list_alerts to inspect existing alerts), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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