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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds transparency about the mark_read side effect and that polling is safe, enhancing understanding beyond annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise at 5 sentences, with the main purpose first, then parameter details, and finally an alternative endpoint. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (source, citation_uri, raw payload) and covers all parameter behaviors. Missing details like pagination are minor given the limit parameter. The alternative endpoint is a nice addition.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful context for parameters, such as an example for type ('sec_8k'), the effect of mark_read on subsequent calls, and the limit range (1-200). This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool pulls fired events from the subscription feed, specifies what each alert contains (source, citation_uri, raw payload), and mentions filtering options. This is specific and unambiguous, with no sibling tools to confuse it.

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 some context (polls work fine, alternative endpoint for scripts/dashboards) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other tools or when not to use it. There are no direct sibling alert tools, so the lack of exclusions is acceptable but not optimal.

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