veroq_alerts

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It explains what each action returns (e.g., 'Create: alert ID and details'), mentions cost (3 credits), and enumerates alert types. It does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior, but the 'create' and 'list' actions imply safe operations.

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 well-structured with sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE, CONSTRAINTS). Every sentence adds necessary information, no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all key aspects: actions, returns, cost, constraints, and an example. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention error handling or rate limits.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by providing the exact values for 'action' (create, list, triggered), a concrete example, and the list of 6 alert types. This helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Create, list, or check triggered price/sentiment alerts.' It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (alerts). Among many sibling tools, this one uniquely handles alert monitoring, making it clearly distinguishable.

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 a 'WHEN TO USE' section: 'To set up automated monitoring.' It also lists the three actions and constraints (6 alert types). Although it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, the context is clear enough for most use cases.

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