check_alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are severity-rated and lists the anomaly classes detected, which is useful context, but it says nothing about how severity is assigned, whether alerts are ranked or capped, or what the response looks like.

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?

A single dense sentence with the most important framing (severity-rated alerts) front-loaded and no filler. It is a noun phrase rather than a complete statement, which slightly weakens readability but wastes nothing.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the detection surface but not the return shape, severity semantics, or the role of the comparison window and search type. It is adequate to decide to call it, but not to predict or interpret results.

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 only 22%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: the enumerated alert types map onto ctr_drop_pct, position_drop, click_drop_pct, and site_drop_pct, giving implicit meaning to those thresholds. However, days, search_type, min_clicks, and min_impressions remain unexplained in both places, leaving a real 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 names a specific resource (severity-rated alerts) and enumerates the exact detection categories: site-wide click drop, query position drops including falling off page one, CTR collapses at the same position, page click losses, and vanished pages. This is far more specific than a tautology and lets an agent distinguish it from generic siblings like traffic_drops or content_decay, though it never states the verb or that it is a bundled diagnostic scan.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives. With siblings such as traffic_drops, content_decay, and find_opportunities in the same family, an agent gets no signal about when this bundled alert check is preferable to those narrower tools.

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