drp_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool accepts 'after', 'filter', 'first', and 'orderBy' variables, and the example illustrates filtering by fields like 'active' and 'assetTypes'. However, it does not reveal return format, pagination behavior, rate limits, or the fact that it also accepts 'customer_slug'. The read-only nature is implied by 'query' but not explicitly stated.

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 starts with a clear front-loaded phrase 'DRP Alerts · query drpAlerts', but then becomes a long run-on sentence with a truncated JSON example. The truncation ('...') makes it feel incomplete and less structured than it could be. It is not excessively long but could be more organized.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain return values or result shape. The filter object is left generic in the schema, and the example is truncated before all filter fields are shown. The tool appears moderately complex (5 params, nested filter object), but the description does not fully compensate for the missing details, especially around pagination and filtering.

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 descriptions are generic ('GraphQL: String', etc.) but cover all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing example filter fields, but it omits 'customer_slug' from the listed variables and the example is truncated, leaving the filter structure incomplete.

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 identifies the operation as 'query drpAlerts', which is a specific verb+resource pair. It implies the tool fetches alert data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the singular 'drp_alert' tool or other alert-related query variants, so it is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 provides an example of variables, which implicitly shows how to construct a query, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'drp_alert' or mutation tools. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance, only an implied usage pattern from the example.

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