alert_stats

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already establish this is a safe, local read, so the description only needs to add aggregation context — which it does by naming the breakdown dimensions. It does not mention the time-window scoping behavior or note that results are aggregate rather than per-alert, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the core concept (alert usefulness) is front-loaded. Slightly dense parenthetical structure, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Low complexity (1 optional param, read-only, output schema present), so the description only needs to convey what is measured and how it is sliced — both of which it does. Only the ignored relationship to the `since` filter keeps it from a 5.

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 `since` parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description's 'by source, form, hops and materiality' refers to grouping dimensions of the output rather than the input parameter, so it adds no meaning to `since` itself.

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?

Names the resource (alerts) and precisely what the tool reports: verdicts plus the share judged related (precision), broken down by source, form, hops and materiality. That is far more specific than its siblings list_alerts/resolve_alert, though the verb is implicit ('stats') rather than stated as 'computes/aggregates'.

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 phrasing 'How useful alerts have been' implies the usage context (evaluating alert quality), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of the nearby scorecard/digest siblings that could also answer performance questions.

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