Check for gap-floor and new-booking alerts

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, no price writes, and detailed notification logic (channel config, default send). Slightly vague on what 'nothing is sent' entails if no channel, but adequate.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, uses numbered points for clarity, and includes all necessary details. It is slightly verbose by including the cron alternative inline but remains well-structured.

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 output schema, the description explains the return (text report, optional notification) but does not detail the report contents or format. For a two-alert tool, the description covers key behavioral aspects, but a sample or structure would improve completeness.

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 single parameter 'send' is described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context about default behavior and conditional sending, which goes beyond the schema's description. This adds meaningful value for an agent.

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 specifies two distinct alert checks (gap-floor and new-booking) and clearly distinguishes from propose_decisions by stating it never saves proposals. The verb 'check' and resource 'alerts' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explains the tool is for proactive checks and contrasts with propose_decisions. It also mentions the cron alternative. However, it does not explicitly list when to avoid this tool versus siblings like gap_night_check or review_history, leaving some ambiguity.

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