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

Annotations cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world safety profile, so the description only needs to add behavioral nuance — which it does: filters is omitted when empty, markdown is the default output, and json is described as larger and noisier for an LLM. It doesn't discuss pagination limits or error behavior for a missing alert_id, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then conditional behavior, then the routing alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information with 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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and explicitly stating that filters is omitted when absent. Combined with the include-based optional sections and the sibling pointer, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: the match_limit default/behavior when include=matches, the conditional relationship between include and match_limit, and the practical tradeoff of output_format='json' ('noisier for an LLM to read').

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 (fetch) and resource (a single alert's full configuration) and enumerates the concrete fields returned (title, kind, cadence, watched entities, notification emails, filters). It also names the sibling particle_alert_list_matches, so the agent can distinguish a single-alert fetch from a paginated history query.

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?

Explicitly describes default behavior ('response is just the configuration'), the opt-in paths with their exact parameter values (include=['matches'], include=['deliveries']), and the alternative tool with its selection condition ('for the full, paginated match history with transcript excerpts, use particle_alert_list_matches'). This is the when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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