list_alarms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description's contribution is the default sort order and implicit paging behavior, which is useful but thin; it says nothing about what a page contains or default filter behavior (e.g., whether cleared alarms are included).

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 zero filler; the operation and its ordering guarantee are stated immediately with nothing redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations plus full schema coverage carry the safety and parameter burden. The remaining gap is minor: the description never indicates default filter behavior or that pagination is expected, though offset/limit are documented in the schema.

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 100% — every parameter (limit, since, state, offset, asset_id, severity) has its own schema-level documentation including enums and pagination semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list alarms) and adds the default ordering semantics ('most severe and most recent first'), which is genuinely informative. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but no competing alarm-listing sibling exists, so ambiguity is low.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the filtering options (state, severity, asset_id, since) an agent would need to decide between, and no reference to alternatives such as acknowledge_alarm. Usage is only inferred from the tool name.

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