List formal alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it names the API endpoint, clarifies the 'formal Alerts / deviations' scope, and explicitly excludes idle/duration and DLP policy hits. No contradictions 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by compact scoped usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 9-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is comprehensive for selection and routing. A minor gap is that the `compact` parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description, leaving its behavioral impact unexplained.

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 89%, so the schema carries most parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond examples of alert categories, meaning it does not elevate above the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'List formal Alerts / deviations' with the underlying endpoint. It further differentiates the tool from siblings by naming what it is not for, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicit 'Use for' and 'Do NOT use for' guidance names concrete scenarios (lateness, overtime, unusual app-share, timetable-fired alerts) and routes the agent to get_idle_summary and list_risks as alternatives. This is exemplary routing guidance.

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