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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it with 'Read-only — it creates nothing.' It adds useful behavioral context about the historical sweep, the returned count/breakdown/sample, and how read-time projections affect the count, going 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and workflow, then packs the critical filter semantics and read-only note into a compact paragraph. It is detailed but every sentence carries operational value; no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the return components (total match count, per-day breakdown, recent sample with episode context). It also covers the window bounds, filter-to-create mapping, and the output_format distinction, making the tool fully callable without external documentation.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is already strong, and the description adds extra meaning by explaining which filter axes narrow the sweep (languages, speaker_roles) versus which are read-time projections that don't (relevance, source_popularity), and that the count is an upper bound when relevance=RELEVANT. This is exactly the kind of beyond-schema semantic guidance an agent needs.

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 — 'Preview how often an alert would fire BEFORE creating it' — and immediately distinguishes this from creation by showing the workflow (sweep, then call particle_alert_create). This is unambiguous and separates it from sibling alert tools.

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 states when to use: to size an alert cadence (REALTIME/DAILY/WEEKLY) or confirm the entity slug, and then directs the agent to call particle_alert_create with the same entity. It also says to pass the intended filters so the estimate matches, which is direct operational guidance.

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