Your alert recipes: every alert on your account with its conditions, scope, channels and when it last fired

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds value beyond them by disclosing the auth requirement ("Needs the account key") and the data scope ("reads nothing but this account"), plus the shape of what comes back.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition followed by the return contract. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 zero params, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description carries the remaining burden well: it explains the trigger, the auth requirement, the scope, and enumerates the return fields that would otherwise be undocumented.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level detail is needed or missing.

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 (list/returns) and resource (the account's alert recipes) and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, scope, symbols, conditions, cooldown, enabled, last fired, fire count, channels). This clearly separates it from create_alert_recipe and delete_alert_recipe in the sibling set.

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?

It states explicit triggering conditions: "when the user asks which alerts they have, whether an alert fired, or before deleting or changing one." This routes the agent to the read tool ahead of the mutation siblings, which is exactly the when-to-use guidance needed.

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