Sentinel Alerts (allowed, but outside this agent's pattern)

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

Annotations already provide read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds value by stating the tool is deterministic, explainable, model-free, and based on the local audit chain, plus mentions the benchmark behavior. This goes beyond the structured 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then provides a concrete use case. The enumeration of alert types is informative without being verbose. Every sentence 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 parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it does, the specific pattern types, its deterministic and explainable nature, and when to use it. Annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameters, so no gaps remain.

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 describes the only parameter 'limit' with full coverage (default 20, maximum 100, exclusive minimum 0). The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 provides predictive pattern alerts from the local audit chain, enumerating specific alert types (first-ever payee, amount spikes, velocity bursts, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on unusual-pattern detection and is clearly separate from summary, proof, or decision tools.

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 a clear use case: 'Use to answer has anything unusual happened before it becomes a loss.' It establishes context but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The title hint 'allowed, but outside this agent's pattern' provides some exclusions but remains implicit.

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