get_watchdog_alerts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns active alerts of specific types and implies the impact on attribution reliability. However, it lacks details on output structure, pagination, or edge cases, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence states purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary information.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description provides good usage context but lacks parameter explanation and return value details. It is fairly complete for a simple tool but could be improved.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain the 'status' parameter. It mentions 'active alerts' but doesn't define the status enum or how filtering works, leaving a significant gap.

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 'Get data quality alerts from the Watchdog agent' and lists specific alert types (signal capture rate drops, null CRM fields, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing solely on watchdog alerts.

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 explicitly advises to check this tool before running attribution analysis, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, though no direct sibling exists.

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