set_alert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the 'local' nature and the type of alerts but does not mention validation behavior (e.g., refused conditions), persistence, or side effects. The schema covers condition values, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond the 'local' qualifier.

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?

A single sentence with concrete examples, no filler. It front-loads the verb and completes the purpose efficiently.

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 tool with an output schema, the description provides adequate context for selection and invocation. It could mention how alerts are stored or triggered, but the combination of purpose and schema is sufficient for most use cases.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds examples ('RSI < 30', 'PRICE > 250') that illustrate the condition/target_value relationship, but this is minor enrichment rather than significant new semantics.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Sets') and identifies the resource ('local price or technical indicator alert for a ticker'), reinforced by concrete examples. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which set alerts.

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 purpose implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on context, when not to use it, or alternatives. Sibling tools are all read-oriented, so there is no direct conflict, but the description does not provide exclusionary criteria.

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