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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating the authorization requirement ('Needs a key') and the scoping to the current mite, which is useful behavioral context.

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, both essential. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and content; the second adds the auth prerequisite. No filler or repetition of annotations.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: what is returned, the time window, and the auth requirement. It does not describe the output format or ordering, and it does not address how this differs from 'signals', but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is vacuously 100% and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds incidental context about the implicit scope ('for this mite') rather than parameter syntax.

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 clearly identifies the resource (alerts for 'this mite') and the time window (last seven days), and enumerates the included categories (rule hits, followed wallets moving, bag guard warnings). It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', and does not differentiate from sibling tools such as 'signals', but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite 'Needs a key' with a documentation link. There is no statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'signals' or 'my_bag', and no exclusions or conditions. The usage context is left entirely to inference.

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