list_alerts

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does signal a read-only, per-site inspection by describing returned attributes, but it says nothing about auth/account scope requirements, whether all rules are returned or paginated, or what an empty site yields. Those omissions matter for a no-annotation tool, though the impact is limited because it is a simple read.

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?

A single well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the resource and then its attributes. The field enumeration partially duplicates the output schema, but it is compact and every clause contributes to identifying the tool's scope.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema covering the return shape, the description supplies enough to select and call it correctly. The remaining gap is the undocumented site_id semantics and lack of any guidance pointing to the alert-event or create-alert siblings.

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?

There is exactly one required parameter (site_id) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema contributes no meaning. The description only obliquely scopes the call 'on a site', without clarifying that site_id identifies that site or what format it takes (ID vs name), leaving the parameter effectively undocumented in both places.

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 names the resource precisely (the account's alert rules on a site) and enumerates the fields each rule carries (soc %, import/export price c/kWh, forecast temperature °C, threshold direction, email flag, last-fired time), which separates it from get_alert_events (events, not rules) and create_alert/delete_alert. It never uses an explicit verb like 'list', but the noun phrase plus the sibling set makes the read operation unambiguous.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call to inspect existing alert rules rather than their firing history. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, no mention of preferring get_alert_events for history or create_alert for new rules, and no stated prerequisites.

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