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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention the database-level filtering behavior for the universe parameter (which scans past US alerts on a measured account), the exclusion of alerts with undetermined markets, or any pagination caveats. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool's basic purpose.

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 description is a single sentence, very concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids fluff and is easy to parse. However, it is so brief that it omits key information about additional filters, which slightly reduces its usefulness despite the clean structure.

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?

Given the tool has 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not mention the universe filtering caveats, default limits, or any behavioral nuances that an agent might need to know for correct invocation. The description is insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions filters for company and classification, which map to the symbol and classification parameters, but it does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the universe filter's nuanced behavior, so it stays at the baseline.

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?

The description clearly states that the tool returns alerts for the current user and supports filtering by company and classification. This provides a specific verb, resource, and scope, distinguishing it from generic 'get' tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling tools, though none appear to be direct alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and other alert-related tools like get_alert_delivery_stats or get_my_alert_performance. There is no 'when not to use' information.

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