datto_edr_alert_details_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only, external-source nature is covered. The description adds that results are enriched/joined views rather than raw alerts, which is meaningful context, but says nothing about result volume, paging behavior, or whether filters are combined with other constraints.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and the endpoint, followed by practical filtering hints. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description does enough by stating what the records contain (alert + host + file/rule context) and how to narrow and trim responses. A brief note on pagination totals or the default result window would make it fully self-sufficient.

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%, including operator lists, limits and nextSkip semantics, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only echoes where/fields with brief examples that the schema already provides, adding little beyond it.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List enriched alert records') and pins it to GET /api/AlertDetails, adding that records join alert, host and file/rule context. That enrichment detail implicitly separates it from plain datto_edr_alerts_list, but the sibling is never named, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Offers per-parameter advice ('use where to filter by alert id or hostname', 'fields to keep response small') but gives no when-to-use-this-vs-alerts_list guidance and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the data shape rather than explained.

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