list_available_alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'alert types that can be configured' indicates the return content. However, it does not mention response shape, pagination, or any side effects, though for this simple enumeration tool the gap is minor.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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 simple one-parameter list tool, the description is reasonably complete: it states what will be returned and the schema documents the required account scoping. It would be slightly stronger if it described the response format, but no output schema exists and the added value would be marginal.

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 schema already documents the single account_id parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about how account_id affects which alert types are returned.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: list available alert types that can be configured. It clarifies that the tool returns alert type definitions rather than alert instances, which distinguishes it from many sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with related notification/alert tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_notification_policies or list_brand_protection_alerts. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about where this tool fits in a workflow.

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