Triggered alerts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds genuinely useful context by noting thresholds are configured in the Qingping app, implying this tool cannot create or modify alerts. However, it says nothing about result ordering, empty results when no alerts fired, or how many alerts can be returned.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical example earns its place by making the alert concept concrete. Slightly compressed phrasing ('over a period') is the only weakness.

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 four-parameter read-only query with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually and where thresholds come from. Missing only return-shape hints, which is a minor gap given the annotations and schema do the rest.

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 coverage is 100%, so start, end, hours and device are already fully documented with defaults and constraints. The description only echoes the 'over a period' notion and adds no detail about the optional device scoping or the hours-vs-start precedence beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific resource (alerts triggered by a Qingping sensor) and a scope (over a period), with a concrete example of what an alert looks like (CO₂ > 1000 ppm). It implicitly separates itself from qingping_current and qingping_history by returning alerts rather than readings, though it never names those siblings.

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: an agent can infer this is the tool for threshold breach events rather than raw measurements, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never points to the sibling tools for readings or interval settings.

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