Alerts Describe Alert

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only a list of returned attributes, which duplicates what the output schema already provides, and says nothing about behavior on a missing alert or cross-database resolution.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient but so terse that the enumeration of return fields is the only content, leaving no room for routing or prerequisite information.

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 read-only describe tool with an output schema, full schema coverage, and complete annotations, the definition is minimally sufficient. It does not cover name resolution across database/schema or failure modes, which an agent would need for the optional qualification parameters.

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%, with each of database, schema_name, and alert_name carrying quoting/casing guidance, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning (e.g., whether alert_name alone is sufficient or must be qualified).

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 uses a specific verb ("Describe") plus the resource (alert) and enumerates exactly what is retrieved: condition SQL, action SQL, schedule, and warehouse. That clearly separates it from alerts_list_alerts and the mutation siblings (create/drop/resume/suspend), though it never names those alternatives.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alerts_list_alerts or how to obtain a valid alert name first. Usage is only inferable from the verb "Describe"; no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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