fa_list_alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with the tier requirement and 401 failure mode, but says nothing about paging behavior, result volume, or what the default single-page response looks like — all left to the schema.

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 short sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the resource and scope, the second front-loads the blocking prerequisite. Zero filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 three-optional-parameter list tool this is close to complete: identity, scope, and the auth/tier gotcha are all covered, and response shapes are documented in the view parameter. It lacks a note on default pagination behavior at the top level, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself carries rich semantics for view (including the 'brief' line format and '-- none'/'-- more' sentinels), cursor, and max_pages billing rationale. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List the flight alerts configured on your AeroAPI account') and clarifies the domain concept with 'the flights you are watching'. It implicitly separates itself from fa_get_alert/fa_create_alert by framing this as the enumeration of the alert collection, though it never names those siblings or states that it returns all alerts unfiltered.

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 supplies a hard eligibility precondition that an agent cannot infer elsewhere: a Standard or Premium tier is required and the free Personal tier returns 401. That is clear usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance (e.g., use fa_get_alert for a single alert id), so it stops short of a 5.

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