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

The description describes a mutation (mark_read:true flags events as read) while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction, as the tool modifies state via mark_read. The description adds other behavioral details (return payload structure) but the contradiction severely undermines transparency.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The description explains what returned events contain (source, citation_uri, payload) and mentions mark_read behavior. It covers filtering and polling. However, it omits mention of the 'limit' and 'unread_only' parameters, though they are in the schema. With 5 parameters and no output schema, some missing context is acceptable but not fully 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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by giving examples (e.g., 'sec_8k' for type, ISO timestamp for since) and explaining the effect of mark_read on subsequent calls, which 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, specifying the resource ('fired events') and the action ('pull'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_subscriptions' by focusing on alerts/events rather than subscription management.

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 context about usage (polling works fine, alternative endpoint) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to siblings like 'list_subscriptions' or 'recent_changes'. However, the clarity of its purpose implies appropriate use cases.

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