get_alert_violations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get recent' and does not clarify whether it returns only open violations, both open and closed, the meaning of the hours window, pagination limits, or how violations relate to incidents. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with no structured behavioral hints.

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 a single clean sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, though the brevity leaves behavioral details unstated; that gap is better penalized in other dimensions.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is underspecified. It does not disambiguate from the sibling get_incidents, does not explain what the returned data looks like, and does not state whether the incident/violation distinction matters for the caller. An agent would likely need additional investigation before invoking it confidently.

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%, and the only parameter 'hours' is already documented with type, default, and a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter beyond loosely implying recency, so the schema carries the semantic weight and the baseline of 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get recent alert violations and incidents.' It is clear it returns alert violation and incident data, but it does not differentiate itself from the closely named sibling get_incidents, so the agent could be uncertain which tool to prefer.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_incidents or query_nrql. The phrase 'recent' implies a time-based lookup, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing criteria are provided.

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