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

Annotations already cover the overall safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.). The description adds important behavioral context: the feed is persisted, mark_read:true flags returned events so future calls only show newer ones, and each event contains source and citation_uri. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the side-effect of mark_read.

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 a single paragraph of four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs in filtering, return details, mark_read behavior, and an HTTP alternative without excessive verbosity. Slightly dense but well-structured.

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 does a good job of explaining return content: 'each carries source, citation_uri (pipeworx:// when available), and the raw event payload.' It covers filtering, mark_read, and the persisted feed. It doesn't specify the exact array structure, but the 'each' wording implies a list, which is adequate.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value with a concrete type example ('sec_8k'), clarifies that 'since' is an ISO timestamp, and explains the consequence of mark_read ('so the next call only shows newer ones'). This provides context beyond the raw 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's function: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed.' It specifies the resource (subscription feed alerts) and verb ('Pull'), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_subscriptions by emphasizing 'alerts' and 'persisted feed.'

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 usage context: it mentions polling, filtering by type and since, and the optional mark_read side-effect. It also offers an alternative access method via HTTP for scripts/dashboards. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe, so it lacks when-not guidance.

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