check_alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are severity-rated, that analysis must be based only on returned data, and that the agent should admit when information is insufficient. These are valuable behavioral traits and limitations.

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 structured with clear sections (purpose, IMPORTANT, PRESENTATION). It is longer than a simple one-liner, but every sentence serves a purpose: clarifying the read-only nature, limiting speculation, and specifying presentation. This is efficient for an agent-facing tool description.

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 4 optional parameters and no output schema. The description compensates for the missing output schema by specifying how to present results (artifacts, cards, charts, tabs). It also adds essential analysis constraints. It is complete for most usage scenarios, though it could mention error cases.

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%, fully explaining days, ctr_drop_threshold, click_drop_threshold, and position_drop_threshold. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond this, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action ('Check for SEO alerts') and specifies the exact resource: position drops, CTR collapses, click losses, and disappeared pages. This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like traffic_drops or ctr_opportunities by covering a broader alert set.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('Check for SEO alerts') and provides important follow-up instructions on analysis and presentation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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