get_drift_alerts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it clarifies the comparison baseline (prior mining job), the change types (weakened, strengthened, disappeared, emerged), and the platform-dependent behavior (BigCommerce today; clear not-available message elsewhere). It does not mention ordering or pagination, but those are minor for a read/list tool.

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 three sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and scope before use cases and platform caveat. Every sentence contributes distinct, useful information.

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 simple two-parameter list operation with full schema coverage, the description covers trigger conditions, output concept, and platform limitations. It does not specify the exact shape of an alert beyond rule/confidence-change, but that is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, with both limit and severity already documented with defaults, ranges, and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('list active drift alerts') and defines what a drift alert is: recommendation rules whose confidence has materially changed versus the prior mining job. It also differentiates this from related siblings like get_forecast_alerts and explain_drift by focusing on material confidence changes.

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 description gives explicit trigger phrases and use cases: 'what's changed?', 'is my model still accurate?', 'are any rules drifting?', and SKU swap/seasonal shift investigation. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the when-to-use guidance is otherwise very clear.

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