Get an alert

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only content disclosure ('thresholds, message, related ticket'), which is useful but thin; it says nothing about permissions, error behavior if the alertId is unknown, or pagination.

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?

One compact fragment with no filler, and the key differentiator (full record vs. list) is front-loaded. The trailing ellipsis, however, leaves the payload description deliberately open-ended rather than crisp.

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 simple single-entity read with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema it should describe the return shape more concretely than an open-ended '...' list. It also omits the error case for an invalid or missing alertId.

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% for the single alertId parameter (typed integer, exclusiveMinimum 0), so the schema already documents the input. The description adds no syntax, format, or identifier-source detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States the resource (alert) and the scope of the payload (full record with thresholds, message, related ticket), which contrasts implicitly with the sibling list_alerts that returns many. It doesn't explicitly name list_alerts as the alternative, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_alerts or get_ticket for the related ticket. The phrase 'Full alert record' weakly implies single-record lookup, but the agent must infer that this is the right tool when it already has an alertId.

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