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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds real value beyond that by enumerating the three legal states and disclosing the non-obvious lifecycle rule that resolving a custom alert lets the next occurrence reopen it. It still doesn't say whether dismissal is permanent or what identifying an alert by id/group entails.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action set, then permissions, then the reopening caveat. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should tell the agent enough to call safely. It covers state semantics and a lifecycle nuance but omits what id refers to, what group scoping does, and whether dismissal is reversible — gaps that matter for a tool flagged destructive.

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 only 33% (only state is documented), so the description carries more burden than usual. It does enumerate the three state values, but the required id and the optional group parameter get no explanation at all beyond an oblique reference to group administrators.

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?

Names a specific verb set (acknowledge/resolve/dismiss) and resource (alert), which cleanly separates it from the read/create siblings alerts_list and alerts_raise. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but the mutating intent is unambiguous.

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?

Implies usage through the state vocabulary and the note that group administrators may update shared alerts, which gives a permission precondition. However, it never says when to use this versus alerts_list (to find the alert first) or alerts_raise, and there are no stated exclusions.

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