tv_get_alert

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses specific behaviors: `presentation_data` is deliberately omitted and why, the condition is untruncated, and the response includes the raw snake_case REST payload. This tells the agent exactly what to expect from the call and why irrelevant megabytes are skipped.

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 verb and resource, then lists the returned payload pieces and one purposely omitted field. Every sentence earns its place, and the note about `presentation_data` is a useful heads-up that prevents the agent from expecting it.

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 single-id read tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists all return segments, leaves out a known irrelevant field with a rationale, and relies on the schema for id/layout/expect_layout. An agent can call it correctly without missing any workflow context.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input JSON schema. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond identifying `id` as returned by tv_list_alerts, which is already present in the schema. The baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the weight.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('one alert') and then enumerates exactly what is included: full description, untruncated firing condition, projected model, and raw listAlerts payload. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list/create/delete alert tools without needing to inspect schemas.

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 scope is clear: this is the full-detail read tool for a single alert, with the id format stated in the schema. It does not explicitly list alternatives like tv_list_alerts for summaries or tv_set_alert_condition for edits, but the read/full semantics provide strong context for when to invoke it.

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