list_log_alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds real context beyond them: the exact return envelope shape ({items, returned, limit, total, truncated, hint}), the per-item fields, and the meaning of total/truncated for pagination. The read-only restatement is redundant with annotations but harmless reinforcement.

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-loads the purpose, then the return shape, then the routing advice, in four compact sentences. Slight redundancy between the description's envelope details and the schema's limit description, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 fully carries the burden by documenting the envelope, item shape, and truncation semantics, and the schema covers target defaults and filter behavior. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by tying limit and name_filter together behaviorally — total reflects all matches after name_filter, small limits don't hide the count, and filtering happens locally on the full collection. That is useful action-level meaning beyond the parameter definitions.

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 — 'List defined Log Insight alerts' — and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_log_alert and get_log_alert_history as the follow-on calls. An agent knows this is the enumeration entry point without opening any schema.

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 clear routing guidance ('Start here, then pass an id to get_log_alert or get_log_alert_history') and a concrete follow-up rule for the truncated case (raise limit or narrow name_filter). It does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., versus search_logs/aggregate_logs for log events rather than alert definitions), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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