check_alerts

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

The description contradicts the annotations: it states that the tool 'Updates each watch's last_checked timestamp after running,' which is a write operation, yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a serious inconsistency that could mislead an agent into thinking the tool has no side effects. Per the rubric, this contradiction forces a score of 1.

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 concise yet complete. Every sentence contributes value: purpose, parameter behavior, side effect, prerequisite, and return format. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how parameters affect behavior, side effects, prerequisite knowledge, and the nature of the return value (summary with counts and metadata). It is fully contextual for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents the topic parameter with 100% coverage, providing the baseline of 3. However, the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the behavior when omitted (all watches), when provided (exact match required), and the side effect of timestamp updates that affect subsequent calls. This added context elevates the score to 4.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Check all saved topic watches for newly published papers since the last check.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on saved watches and the since-last-check behavior, which is unique among the listed tools like search_papers or semantic_search.

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 explicit usage context: it explains the default behavior (check all watches) versus the optional topic parameter, and it names the prerequisite tool (watch_topic) to register topics. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like search_papers or semantic_search, which would warrant a 5.

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