list_nrql_conditions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that returned conditions include their queries and thresholds, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite a cursor parameter.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns; nothing is redundant or padded.

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-value explanation is not needed, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The gap is on the input side: with three parameters and 33% coverage, the description should have clarified cursor paging and account_id scoping.

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 only 33% (policy_id is documented, cursor and account_id are not), and the description mentions no parameters at all. It therefore fails to compensate for the undocumented cursor and account_id fields, leaving the agent to infer how pagination and account scoping work.

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 NRQL alert conditions,' and adds scope detail ('including their queries and thresholds'). It is clearly separable from siblings like list_alert_policies or get_entity, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the distinction.

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 second sentence gives a rationale ('fastest way to reproduce what an alert saw at the time it fired'), which implies when the tool is useful, but it offers no explicit when-not guidance and no comparison against run_nrql or list_alert_policies.

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