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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that the tool reads historical alert records and filters them, but it does not explicitly state that it is side-effect-free or describe response format, ordering, or error behavior.

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 a single concise sentence with the query action front-loaded and all filter dimensions enumerated efficiently. There is no filler or redundant content.

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?

The schema covers all parameter constraints and the core purpose is clear. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not clarify return-value shape or usage boundaries relative to sibling tools such as alert_stats.

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 every parameter already has meaning. The tool description only restates the filter dimensions without adding new semantic details, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 names a specific operation ('query historical alert records') and lists the filtering dimensions (address, rule type, severity, time range). This makes the action and resource clear, though it does not explicitly contrast the tool with siblings such as alert_stats.

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 use case is implied: the agent should use this tool when historical alert records are needed and filters apply. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from sibling tools.

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