List Blind-Spend (Wasted-Spend) Alerts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates safety. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: pagination, default filters, list of returned fields including nested searchTerms, and the fact that dismissed alerts are excluded. No contradiction with annotations.

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, information-dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and then systematically covers output fields and pagination. No redundant sentences.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (six optional filters, pagination, deeply nested item structure) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a complete inventory of the response shape and behavior. Everything an agent needs to know is included.

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 descriptions cover all six parameters, and the description merely restates filter names and updatedSince's purpose already in the schema. It adds marginal context beyond the schema, so a 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 opens with a direct use case ('find wasted PPC ad spend') and clearly identifies the resource (blind-spend alerts) and scope (across connected Amazon seller accounts). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_rank_radars or get_niche_* by focusing on wasted-spend 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?

States when to use ('find wasted PPC ad spend'), explains default behavior (active alerts, last 30 days), and specifically calls out updatedSince for incremental polling. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternative tools, but the use case is clear enough.

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