list_alerts

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

Description confirms read-only behavior (consistent with annotations readOnlyHint=true) and adds that the result is paginated, which is beyond annotations. No behavioral traits are hidden. Annotations already cover safety, so description adds useful pagination context.

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: first states primary purpose, second states exclusions. No redundant phrases, all content earns its place.

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?

Tool has 5 optional params, no output schema. Description covers usage context, pagination, and exclusions. It could mention the return format (alert objects) but not essential given simplicity.

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% with all parameters described. The description does not add extra semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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?

Description clearly states 'Use this when the user wants to see their cost alerts or check alert configurations', specifying the verb 'see/check' and resource 'cost alerts/configurations'. It distinguishes from sibling tools get_anomalies and list_budgets by explicitly excluding them.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use (view alerts/configurations) and when-not-to-use (anomaly detection and budget tracking) with alternative tool names (get_anomalies, list_budgets). This leaves no ambiguity.

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