Run anomaly detection now; returns the alerts raised

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description must carry the write semantics — and it does: it flags WRITE, states nothing is executed unless confirm: true, notes the preview behavior, and warns there is no server-side dry run. It stops short of covering permissions, side effects on existing alert state, or rate limits.

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 tightly packed sentences: the action and return value come first, the endpoint second, and the write/confirm constraint last where it is most likely to be acted on. No filler or restatement of the title beyond the necessary framing.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies what the tool returns ('the alerts raised'), and for a two-parameter mutation tool it covers the execute-vs-preview decision fully. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so confirm and idempotencyKey are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that confirm exists because the operation has no server-side dry run and that omitting it returns a request preview.

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 action and resource ('Run anomaly detection now') and states what it produces ('returns the alerts raised'), plus the underlying endpoint POST /v1/anomalies/detect. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as rules_simulate or rules_run, which are the obvious confusables.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'Run anomaly detection now' — an agent can infer this executes immediately rather than previewing on the server. There is no explicit when-to-use versus rules_simulate/rules_run, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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