get_log_alert

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value with the return projection ({id, name, enabled, info} plus raw_keys) and how raw_keys exposes previously unseen fields. It does not need to restate 'Read-only' since annotations carry that, but the return-shape disclosure is substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with a [READ] tag and the core action, then supporting detail. Every sentence carries information (routing, return shape, raw_keys rationale), though the closing 'Read-only.' slightly duplicates the annotation.

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 no output schema, the description usefully describes what comes back, including raw_keys, so an agent knows the response shape. Combined with the thorough schema error descriptions, the definition is nearly complete for a simple two-parameter read.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both target and alert_id are fully documented in the schema, including error behavior (404/500, malformed-id refusal). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the stored definition of one alert') and names the sibling it follows from (list_log_alerts). It is clearly distinguishable from get_log_alert_history, which it explicitly routes to for firing data.

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 explicit sequencing guidance ('Use this after list_log_alerts') and names the alternative for a different question ('For when the alert fired, use get_log_alert_history'). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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