Alertas del sistema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful content context about the types of alerts but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any filtering behavior, which would have added more value.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what alerts are available, and the second adds a practical workflow hint. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional, well-described parameter and strong annotations, the description provides enough to understand what the tool does and when to use it. It could be more explicit about the output shape or that it returns a list, but the alert categories make the expected result reasonably clear.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter (cuenta) with its own description, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, which is acceptable given the 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 clearly identifies the resource (system-generated alerts) and enumerates specific categories: stock-outs, competitor price drops, new claims, and paused listings. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'show,' so the action is implied rather than stated, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings beyond the workflow hint.

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 positions the tool as a good second step after ml_panel, giving the agent useful sequencing guidance. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear for a simple read-only alerts tool.

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