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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the 'List' action is consistent with that. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are ordered newest first, and each entry carries only the alert id rather than full configuration, implying the list is a summary view and full detail requires particle_alert_get. This goes beyond the structured 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?

Two sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core function and ordering, and the second efficiently explains downstream routing. Every clause contributes to agent decision-making.

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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what is returned, in what order, and how the id connects to related tools. There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently hints at the entry shape. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents limit, cursor, and output_format. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, but the context of ordering and id usage indirectly supports understanding the list's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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: 'List the alerts in your project', and adds the ordering constraint 'newest first'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling alert tools by showing how the returned id feeds into get, list_matches, update, and delete, so an agent can clearly tell listing apart from those operations.

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 clearly indicates this tool is the entry point for discovering alert ids, then routes the agent onward to particle_alert_get, particle_alert_list_matches, particle_alert_update, and particle_alert_delete. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the routing creates strong contextual guidance for choosing the correct sibling.

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