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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: the `filters` section is omitted when no filters exist, the default response is configuration-only, and include options change the payload. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 efficiently written sentences, each earning its place: the first enumerates the returned config fields, the second handles the conditional omission of filters, and the third covers include options and the sibling alternative. No redundancy or 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 read-only getter with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the primary purpose, optional embedded sections, and the sibling for deeper history. It does not explicitly state error behavior for nonexistent alerts, but that is not critical for correct invocation.

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 description does not add much beyond the schema: it repeats the 'include' behavior and points to particle_alert_list_matches for full pagination, which the schema already states. It adds minor clarity about 'recent matches' but does not compensate significantly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a single alert's full configuration', then enumerates exactly what that includes. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling particle_alert_list_matches by stating that the full paginated match history belongs to that other tool.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (for a single alert's config) and when to route elsewhere: 'For the full, paginated match history with transcript excerpts, use particle_alert_list_matches.' It also explains the optional include=['matches'] and include=['deliveries'] behaviors, so an agent knows when to request these additions.

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