alert_check

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

The description contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation by stating 'A rule that fires is recorded so it does not fire again for the same bar' and by offering dry_run to avoid recording. Recording fires is a state-modifying side effect, so readOnlyHint should not be true. This contradiction makes the behavioral disclosure unreliable.

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 four sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds efficiency details, side-effect behavior, and a critical semantic distinction about 'reason'. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description's explanation of what is reported ('which fired', 'reason' values) is essential and largely sufficient. It also covers fetching behavior and the duplicate-fire prevention. The main gap is the unresolved contradiction with annotations, which prevents a perfect completeness score.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add direct parameter semantics beyond the schema, but it provides useful context around the dry_run behavior and the meaning of 'reason', which slightly enriches understanding. This does not elevate the score above baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Evaluate'), a clear resource ('stored alert rules'), and the expected outcome ('report which fired'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling alert tools like alert_create, alert_list, and alert_delete, which handle different operations.

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 context is clear: this tool evaluates rules against current bars and reports which fire, which implies it is the right choice for firing checks rather than managing alerts. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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