List open alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and explicitly declares 'Read-only', which is a critical behavioral disclosure. It also states the data is a daily snapshot and that each event includes score before/after and pillar deltas, giving agents a realistic expectation of data recency and content. It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a listing tool this is minor.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and content, and the second adds the publication cadence and read-only nature. Every clause contributes value, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs: it lists alert categories, explains the data payload (score before/after, pillar deltas), and notes publication frequency. It does not specify return format or sorting, but those are not essential for a basic list operation, and the absence of an output schema lowers the expectation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (chainId and minSeverity), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, and per the rubric the baseline of 3 applies when schema coverage is high and the description doesn't compensate further.

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 uses a specific verb ('list'), identifies the resource ('open blowup-monitor alerts'), and enumerates the alert types (score-band exits, fast composite breaks, etc.), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from the unrelated sibling tools, so no confusion arises.

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?

The description gives useful usage context: the data comes from a published daily snapshot and the date field indicates freshness. It does not explicitly state when-not to use it, but since no sibling tool overlaps in functionality, explicit alternatives are unnecessary. The clarity of purpose and frequency note are adequate guidance.

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