get_alert

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral nuance: some fields exist only 'once investigated', and inbound email/detection-rule content appears only for email- or detector-raised alerts. That conditional-population detail is not derivable from the annotations or parameter schema.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the core contents, and each clause contributes new information about what is returned. The line break mid-sentence is cosmetic noise but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, and the description covers the conditional cases an agent would otherwise be surprised by. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, though a note on behavior for an unknown/expired alert_id would complete it.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage including a format example ('ALERT-1001'), the schema does the work and the description adds nothing about alert_id. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('One alert's current status') plus the payload contents (proposed fix, confidence, root-cause summary), which clearly distinguishes it from list_alerts and get_usage. It stops short of naming a sibling, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied by the singular 'One alert's' framing — an agent can infer this is for a known alert_id rather than browsing. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to list_alerts for discovery.

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