Collector alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: an empty list before the first run is a false-negative signal for collector health. That caveat is exactly the kind of insight annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The payload is stated first and the interpretive caveat is front-loaded as the second sentence, which is where it matters most.

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 an output schema present and zero parameters, the description only needs to frame what the return means, and it does so with the empty-list caveat. It is slightly thin on when the alert set resets (per run vs cumulative), which would fully close the loop.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because there is none to add, and none is needed.

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 resource (errors from the last earnings collection run) plus the secondary signal of whether a run has occurred, with a concrete example (expired provider credentials). It is clearly distinct in content from siblings like get_service_logs or get_fleet_summary, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to route against.

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?

Usage is implied — check this after/before triggering collection to see failures — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of how it relates to trigger_collection or get_service_logs, and no guidance on how often to poll it. The agent must infer the workflow context.

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