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

The description directly contradicts the annotations. Annotations include 'readOnlyHint': true, but the description says 'Set mark_read:true to flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones' — a clear side effect that modifies state. This is an annotation contradiction, so the score must be 1. Even though the description adds useful behavioral context elsewhere, the contradiction overrides.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides distinct information: purpose/return payload, filtering and mark_read behavior, polling and alternative endpoint. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return payload contents. It covers the mark_read side effect, filtering options, polling suitability, and external access. Given the 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is very complete for an agent to decide and invoke the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving a concrete type example ("sec_8k") and explaining the consequence of mark_read ('so the next call only shows newer ones'), which is not in the schema. This extra semantic detail justifies a 4.

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 what the tool does: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed' and specifies it returns alerts from the evaluator's persisted feed. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the feed source, the return payload elements, and even provides an external endpoint for the same data.

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?

It gives clear usage context: filtering by type and since, mark_read behavior, and polling suitability. It also points out an alternative external access method ('the same feed is also at GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json for scripts and dashboards'). However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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