list_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only, returns a paginated JSON array with a hasMore flag, and that alerts include change diffs and action hints. This provides solid behavioral context beyond the schema. It could mention error handling or caching, but overall it is transparent.

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 description is four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then filters, then response details, then usage hint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (JSON array with pagination.hasMore) and contents (change diffs, action hints). It covers purpose, filters, usage guidance, and read-only nature. With 6 parameters and rich sibling context, the description is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as noting that projectId comes from list_projects and competitorId from list_competitors. It repeats the enum options for dimension and severity. No deep parameter semantics are added, but the existing schema is already descriptive.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource combination: 'Get paginated competitive alerts'. It clearly states the scope ('detected changes across all monitored dimensions') and lists filter options by dimension, severity, and competitorId. The phrase 'before diving into specific dimension dashboards' distinguishes this tool from the per-dimension siblings.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this to find recent competitive changes before diving into specific dimension dashboards.' It also clarifies it is read-only and returns paginated results with a hasMore flag. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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