list_alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered newest first and the response includes an unread count. It remains silent on pagination behavior, though the schema's limit field partly covers that.

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 long sentence, but effectively front-loaded: the core action comes first, then the enumerated content, ordering, unread count, and the dashboard analogy. Dense yet every clause carries information, so there is little waste.

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 takes on the job of describing returns, and it does so reasonably by listing the alert categories and noting the unread count and newest-first ordering. It stops short of describing the shape of an individual alert record, but for a simple two-parameter feed this is nearly complete.

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 parameters (limit with its 500 cap and default 50, unread boolean) are already fully documented in structured data. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, which is exactly the baseline case.

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 (list) and resource (alerts) and then enumerates the exact alert categories returned — rank drops/rises, keyword entries/exits, rival movements, Apple Ads steps, discovery runs. This clearly separates it from the write-oriented siblings mark_alerts_read, create_alert_rule and delete_alert_rule.

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 'same feed as the bell in the dashboard' analogy implies when an agent would reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. mark_alerts_read for mutating read state). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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