get_alerts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses that the pagination envelope is verified but the per-row shape is not, that entries contain best-effort guesses plus an untouched `raw` row, and that legacy authentication is required. This is unusually candid behavioral context an agent could not get from the 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 purpose is front-loaded in one line, followed by detail blocks that each add real information (data-shape caveat, auth requirement). It is slightly verbose with parenthetical asides 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description supplies valuable caveats about unverified row shape and auth. The only meaningful omission is the semantics of the site_id parameter, which leaves the definition slightly short for a 1-param tool.

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 single parameter site_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description is responsible for clarifying it, yet it never mentions site_id at all. It is unclear whether omitting site_id lists alerts across all sites or behaves some other way, leaving a real gap for the only input.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('List active alerts on a site'), making the tool's function immediately clear. Although siblings like list_devices exist, the alerts resource is distinct enough that no explicit differentiation is needed. An agent can identify this tool's job from the first line.

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 states a prerequisite (legacy OMADA_USER/OMADA_PASS login) but never says when to choose this tool over alternatives or under what conditions alert listing is appropriate. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use framing at all.

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