Set Shortlist Alert

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

The description discloses substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the OR-based firing conditions, evaluation after each daily baseline refresh, delivery via webhook and/or email, and API-key scoping. This gives the agent a strong model of how the alert behaves and what setting it actually does.

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 detailed but tight, and important information is front-loaded: the alert type and purpose come first, followed by firing logic, evaluation cadence, and delivery. Every sentence contributes operational or selection value, and there is no redundant restating of the title.

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 4-parameter alert-creation tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the alert monitors, when it fires, how often it is evaluated, how notifications are delivered, and scope limitations. The trigger formula and example make parameter usage concrete, and the output schema handles return-value expectations.

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 already 100%, but the description adds useful combined semantics by explaining that the alert fires when either percentile_below OR delta_below is violated, and clarifies the negative-number convention with an example. The schema already explains individual parameters, so the description adds meaningful interpretive value without needing to repeat everything.

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: setting a DRIFT ALERT on a saved shortlist, with explicit triggering criteria based on percentile and delta thresholds. This clearly distinguishes it from single-site or market-level alert tools by scoping to the shortlist resource.

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 clear use context: use this to stop polling and get notified on material moves during long-running siting campaigns. It does not explicitly name alternatives like set_market_alert or set_site_alert or give exclusion rules, but the resource type and alert semantics make the intended use clear.

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