alert_sources

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral claim—it returns exact attachments rather than heuristically guessed plot indices—which is genuinely useful. However, it does not reconcile the odd idempotentHint=false on an ostensibly pure read, nor does it describe output shape.

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 with the discovery payload front-loaded and the negative constraint (no guessed plot indices) second. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence is terse enough to be slightly cryptic out of context.

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?

The description effectively enumerates what is returned (IDs, versions, input metadata, alertcondition IDs), which substitutes for the absent output schema. But the schema's own parameter text mentions "Required for changes" and "before writing," implying a write-adjacent workflow that the description never explains, leaving the read-only vs. mutation-adjacent relationship ambiguous for the agent.

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%, so both optional parameters (target_id, expected_layout_id) are fully documented in the schema itself, including the layout mismatch guard. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only the baseline.

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?

A specific verb ("Discover") tied to concrete resources: attached Pine study IDs, versions, input metadata and alertcondition IDs. That distinguishes it from the sibling alert_list/alert_get tools, which presumably return alert records rather than the underlying study identifiers. It never says explicitly which sibling it replaces, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative. The clause "Does not guess plot indices" implies it is the safe precursor for alert creation/update where exact study IDs are needed, but the agent must infer that workflow. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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