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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond those annotations: results are newest-first, optional view=detailed changes payload richness, and backfilled matches are flagged and never triggered an email. No contradiction with 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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core purpose, then add the most decision-relevant parameter guidance and one important data nuance. No redundant restating of schema fields; every clause earns its place.

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 list tool with full schema coverage of all 7 parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing result semantics (match contents, slugs, excerpt behavior, backfill flag). An agent has what it needs to select and 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining what view=detailed yields (transcript excerpts), what after/before do (date-range scoping), and how returned slugs connect to particle_podcast_get_episode / particle_podcast_resolve.

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 matches an alert has caught') and adds ordering ('newest first'), making the tool's job unmistakable. It also clarifies what a match contains (watched entity, podcast episode, slugs) and differentiates this from alert-lifecycle siblings like particle_alert_list.

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 phrase 'the payoff of an alert' gives clear context for when this belongs in a workflow, and the description gives direct guidance for optional behavior ('Use view=detailed... after/before...'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a top score.

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