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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint, so the closing "Effect: none, read-only" earns no credit. The added value is elsewhere: the description discloses the per-channel delivery state (active flag, pending matches, last delivery) and the round-trip caveat that `other` carries website-only filters preserved by updates — behavior an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a short clarification and an effect statement. The field enumeration is long but each item earns its place because there is no output schema; minor cost is that the channel details are crammed into the same sentence as the top-level fields.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does cover alert fields, channel state, and the account-wide delivery_schedule. It omits ordering, cardinality limits, and what an empty result looks like, which matters for an agent deciding whether a missing alert means nothing is configured.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The mention of query, filters, salary_min/max and `other` describes return payload fields rather than inputs, which is still useful but does not add parameter meaning.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("List the person's job alerts") and enumerates exactly what each alert record contains, which separates it from mutation siblings like update_subscription and unsubscribe. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5, but an agent can tell what this returns without opening any 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?

Usage is only implied: it says the search is returned "as the structured object the alert tools take" and that `other` holds "website-only filters an update keeps," which hints this is the read side of an update round-trip. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus subscription_updates or update_subscription, and no exclusions.

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