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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond this: each event carries source, citation_uri, and raw payload; mark_read:true changes read state so subsequent calls only show newer events; and the feed is persisted. It also notes polling works, enriching the understanding of tool behavior without contradicting 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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then logically covers return format, filtering, state behavior, and alternative access. It is slightly long but every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 sufficiently explains the return payload (source, citation_uri, raw event payload) and covers filtering, state mutation, polling, and an alternative external endpoint. The 5 parameters are well documented in the schema, and the description's additional examples make the tool fully understandable for an agent.

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%, so all parameters are already described. The description adds meaning by giving a concrete example for 'type' ('sec_8k'), specifying the ISO timestamp format for 'since', and explaining the state-changing effect of mark_read on future calls. It does not cover limit and unread_only, but those are adequately handled by the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Pull') and resource ('fired events from your subscription feed'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_subscriptions, which manages subscriptions, not events. It also specifies the return type ('recent alerts') and filtering capabilities, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context by stating the tool pulls events, supports polling, and mentions an alternative HTTP endpoint for scripts/dashboards. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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