get_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' alerts, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'page' parameters but not explained), or what 'triggered alerts' entails in terms of format or scope. This is inadequate for a tool with 6 parameters and no output 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering to best practices for conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and any explanation of return values or error handling. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't add enough value to guide an agent effectively in selection and invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'limit' as 'Number of results to return'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'intraday_only' relates to 'triggered alerts' or what 'config_ids' represent. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context.

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 'Get triggered alerts for the user' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('triggered alerts'), specifying it retrieves alerts that have been triggered. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stock_flow_alerts' or 'get_option_trades_flow_alerts', which might retrieve different types of alerts, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that also retrieve alerts or related data (e.g., 'get_stock_flow_alerts'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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