alert_prepare

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description still adds real value by confirming nothing is created and by disclosing what comes back ('hashes and inspectable routing metadata'). It does not explain what a hash is for or how validation failures surface, but the mutation-safety question is answered consistently with annotations.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and the non-creating constraint front-loaded before the return-value note. Every clause carries 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 13-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape but supplies no parameter-level guidance. It is minimally adequate for an agent that reads the schema carefully, but the low schema coverage means gaps remain.

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 only 15% across 13 parameters (including a nested condition object with kind/price/study_id/comparison/offsets_by_plot), and the description explains none of them. Notable semantics — why idempotency_key is required for a read-only prepare, what target_id and expected_layout_id guard against, how condition.kind selects which other fields apply — are left entirely undocumented.

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 ('build and validate'), a specific resource ('native price, strategy or indicator alert'), and an explicit non-effect ('without creating it'). The phrase 'from current chart state' further scopes it, which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling alert_create without opening either schema.

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?

'Without creating it' clearly frames this as a pre-flight step, so an agent can infer it precedes alert_create. However, no sibling is named explicitly and no conditions or exclusions are given (e.g. when to skip preparation and call alert_create directly), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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