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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: returned fields, mark_read flagging behavior, and external access via URL. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by return fields, filtering/state change, and external access. Every sentence adds value; no unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return fields, filtering, and mark_read behavior. It covers core usage and mentions external access. However, it does not address pagination beyond limit (e.g., if a cursor is needed), but given the open world hint, this is acceptable.

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 descriptions cover all 5 parameters. The description adds examples (type 'sec_8k'), clarifies the effect of mark_read, and mentions default limit (50) and range (1-200). This provides practical guidance beyond 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 clearly states the tool pulls fired events from a subscription feed, returning recent alerts with source, citation_uri, and raw payload. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_subscriptions and subscribe by focusing on retrieving specific alert events.

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 explains how to filter by type and since timestamp, and how mark_read affects subsequent calls. It also mentions polling is fine and an alternative URL. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to other tools.

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