alert_fires

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: ordering of filtering vs. pagination and the important caveat that a fire record does not prove webhook delivery. It stops short of stating sort order, result cardinality, or rate/limit behavior.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the pagination mechanic comes first and the caveat last. Slightly terse on what 'filters' refers to, but nothing is wasted.

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 5-parameter read with no output schema, the description should at least sketch what a fire record contains and which filters are honor-able. It covers pagination and one data-semantics caveat but leaves the return shape and the alert_id filter undocumented.

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?

Only offset/limit are referenced, and only by repeating the pagination mechanic the schema already documents with defaults and bounds. With 40% schema coverage, alert_id is never explained and the implausible target_id/expected_layout_id parameters are left entirely unaddressed, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('page through ... firing history') and adds the pagination mechanism, so an agent knows this is a paginated read of delivery/fire attempts. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling alert reads (alert_list, alert_get, alert_verify), leaving the boundary implicit.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over alert_get/alert_list/alert_verify, and no note that it is the tool for inspecting delivery attempts rather than alert definitions. 'Filters apply before pagination' is a mechanics note, not a selection rule, and the available filters are never named.

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