check_alerts

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it flags two types of issues with severity levels, which is adequate. However, it does not mention whether it is a read-only operation, any prerequisites, or potential side effects.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey the core purpose and details. The second sentence is somewhat lengthy but still efficient. No redundant information is present.

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 has 2 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description adequately explains the alerts checked but does not cover parameter meaning or return format. It is partially complete but leaves gaps for the agent to infer.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not explicitly mention 'site' or 'days' or how they affect the scan. The parameter semantics are not enhanced beyond the schema.

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 states it scans for structural SEO risks, specifically traffic concentration and high-impression low-rank pages, with detailed severity and conditions. This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like analytics_anomalies or get_search_analytics.

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 explains what the tool does but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context of scanning for structural risks is implied, but no direct comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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