Get Alert By Short Id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the input may be a full URL rather than an ID, but says nothing about resolution failures (what happens if the short_id is unknown) or scope/permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste: the capability comes first, then the triggering scenario. Everything is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations carry the safety profile; the parameter is fully documented in schema. What remains is minor — no mention of behavior when the short_id doesn't resolve — but an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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% and the single parameter already documents both the short_id form ('PhIQtP') and the URL form with a concrete example. The description restates the same dual-input fact without adding format, normalization, or error semantics beyond the schema — baseline 3 is correct.

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 ("Get alert details") and adds a distinguishing identifier trait — lookup by short_id or alert URL — which separates it from the generic get_alert sibling in the same family. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer which one to pick.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering scenario: the user pastes an alert URL or short_id from a pager notification and wants to investigate. That is a clear positive-use condition. It does not state when to prefer get_alert instead, nor any exclusions, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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