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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a critical trait: it does NOT return decrypted config such as webhook URLs and PagerDuty routing keys. It also implies authentication is required ('authenticated account'). It doesn't cover rate limits or pagination, but the security-relevant omission is well surfaced.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the critical limitation, then the alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description helpfully clarifies what is omitted from the return. Auth needs are implied and the alternative path is given. Only minor operational details (pagination, ordering) are left unaddressed.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rules. There is nothing further for the description to clarify about inputs.

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 alert channels') and scopes it to the authenticated account, distinguishing it clearly from the sibling create_alert_channel. An agent can immediately tell this is a read-only enumeration 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 states when not to rely on the output (when you need decrypted config) and names concrete alternatives: the dashboard or the `describe_alert_channel` HTTP API. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative routing the dimension asks for.

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