faz_list_alerts

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive traits. The description adds important behavioral constraints: times must be supplied as a pair, filter_expression uses a specialized alert-filter syntax, and pagination is bounded. No contradiction 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 cover purpose and key usage guidance with no redundancy. Each sentence earns its place, and the most important information (what it lists) is front-loaded.

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 list tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the critical usage aspects: purpose, time constraints, and filter preferences. It does not clarify adom or pagination details, but these are less central given the output schema and self-explanatory parameter names. Overall adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for start_time/end_time (pair requirement, format), filter_expression (alert-filter syntax), and recommends event_type/severity for common filters. However, it does not explain other parameters like adom or the pagination semantics, leaving partial gaps.

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 clearly states 'List event-management alerts', identifying the specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like faz_list_devices and faz_list_report_layouts. 'Bounded pagination' adds useful scope.

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?

Provides clear context for using time parameters (must be paired, specific format) and suggests preferring event_type and severity over filter_expression for common filters. Does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the resource-specific naming makes usage context fairly clear.

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