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

The description discloses a side effect: 'Set mark_read:true to flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones.' This contradicts the idempotentHint:true and readOnlyHint:true annotations, as marking read changes state and makes repeated calls non-idempotent. Score is 1 due to annotation contradiction.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase earns its place: purpose, return contents, filters, side effect, and alternative endpoint. No redundancy or filler.

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 appropriately lists key return fields (source, citation_uri, raw event payload) and covers filtering, mark_read, and an alternative access URL. Minor gaps like limit semantics are covered by schema descriptions, so the description is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it gives an example type ('sec_8k'), clarifies 'since' as ISO timestamp, and explains the consequence of mark_read on future calls. This goes above the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 description opens with 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed', a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_subscriptions and recent_changes by specifying 'recent alerts' with source, citation_uri, and raw payload.

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 provides practical context: 'Polls work fine; the same feed is also at GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json for scripts and dashboards.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate and offers an alternative for programmatic access. It doesn't explicitly exclude sibling tools, but the use case is well-defined.

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