list_alerts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only confirmed alerts are returned, that there is a verification process, and that rejected items are excluded. It also explains the default behavior of `min_severity` and the optional nature of `video_id`. It does not discuss side effects, but as a list operation, the read-only nature is reasonably clear.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured into parameter explanations. Every sentence provides value: the purpose, per-arg guidance, and the pointer to an alternative tool. No filler or repetition.

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's simplicity (3 optional params, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains what is returned, how to narrow results, and how to access a related data set. The existence of an output schema means the description need not detail the return structure.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully. Each parameter is given added meaning: `video_id` is explained with the 'omit if only one' rule, `hazard_type` is defined as a taxonomy key, and `min_severity` is given allowed values, a default, and what the default means. This goes well beyond the schema's type/default information.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('verified safety alerts for a processed video'), and it clearly differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'confirmed alerts only' and pointing to `list_rejected_detections` for the rejected set. This is a precise, non-tautological purpose.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'omit if only one has been processed' for `video_id`, and an alternative tool for a different need: 'Rejected detections are available via `list_rejected_detections` if you want to audit what the verifier removed.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool vs. an alternative.

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