Alert text to an alert recipe: turn a sentence like "BTC funding above 0.05%" into the recipe it describes

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and closed-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: rule-based parsing, nothing is saved, returns recipe-or-null with confidence, a confirmation summary and unresolved assumptions, and the key guarantee that an unstated threshold is never invented. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before calling.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded and the return contract follows immediately. It is dense and the enumeration of return fields and caveats makes sentences long, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 fully documents the return shape (recipe fields, null case, confidence, summary, unresolved) and the input limits, so an agent can both call and interpret the result without additional sources.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond the schema by constraining input to English with tickers and a maximum of 500 characters, plus inline examples of acceptable phrasing.

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 name plus description state a specific verb and resource: converting a natural-language alert sentence into a structured alert recipe before creation. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as create_alert_recipe and list_alert_recipes.

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 an explicit trigger ('Call this when the user describes an alert in words ... and you want the exact recipe before creating it') and names the follow-up action, passing the returned conditions/scope/symbols/channels to create_alert_recipe once the user agrees. When-not-to-use is implicit but the routing to the sibling is unambiguous.

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