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 establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds genuinely new context: it requires a signed-in account (OAuth or account key) and that it "reads nothing but this account", which matters for a query that could otherwise be assumed to span tenants. It also explains the non-obvious `reachable` flag. Rate limits and pagination behavior are not addressed.

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, zero filler — the first front-loads the call conditions and the second defines the return payload and auth requirement. Every clause carries information an agent needs to decide and call correctly.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values and does so field-by-field, including channels_available and the meaning of `reachable`. Auth prerequisites and account scoping are also covered, leaving nothing material unstated for a no-parameter read.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the description correctly refrains from inventing parameter guidance and instead spends its space on return contents. Baseline is 4 for a 0-parameter tool.

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+resource ("Returns the account's alert recipes") and enumerates the exact payload fields (id, scope, conditions, cooldown, last fired, channels, reachable). This clearly separates it from the mutating siblings create_alert_recipe, delete_alert_recipe, and parse_alert_text without needing to open a schema.

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 gives concrete call triggers: when the user asks which alerts exist, whether one fired, or before deleting/changing one — the last clause implicitly routes writes elsewhere. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (create/delete_alert_recipe) explicitly, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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