alertops_get_alert_id_by_inbound_message_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that the messageID is the value returned by an inbound integration call and that the tool resolves or maps it to an AlertID, but it does not disclose behavior for unmatched messageIDs, error cases, or whether any side effects occur.

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?

Two concise sentences, with the core purpose stated first and the key clarifying distinction second. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the main purpose and parameter semantics well. However, without an output schema or annotations, it would be stronger if it mentioned what happens when the messageID is not found or what the return value looks like.

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 schema already fully documents message_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explicitly distinguishing the inbound messageID from the AlertID, which reduces the risk of passing the wrong identifier.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('AlertID') from a given inbound messageID, and clarifies that the messageID is not the AlertID. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the similarly named sibling alertops_get_alert_id_by_unique_inbound_id.

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 implies use when you have an inbound integration messageID but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over its sibling alertops_get_alert_id_by_unique_inbound_id. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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