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

The description discloses a mutating behavior: "Set mark_read:true to flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones." This directly contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint: true, which indicates the tool should not modify state. Because the description contradicts an annotation, the transparency score is a 1.

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 and front-loaded. The first sentence immediately states the primary action. Each subsequent sentence adds distinct information: return format, filtering options, state change, and an alternative access method. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what is returned, how to filter, the mark_read side effect, and a script-friendly alternative. It does not explain error handling or auth, but given the annotations (openWorldHint, readOnlyHint) and the schema, it is fairly complete. The annotation contradiction slightly reduces completeness, but the description itself is strong.

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?

While the input schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds value beyond the schema. It gives a concrete example for the type parameter ("sec_8k"), explains the effect of 'since' as 'ISO timestamp', and clarifies the state-changing behavior of mark_read:true. This enriches the schema descriptions and helps the agent understand the interplay between parameters.

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 purpose: "Pull fired events from your subscription feed." It specifies the resource (subscription feed) and the action (pull events/alerts), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'recent_changes' or 'recall' by focusing on alerts from a persisted feed. The mention of 'source, citation_uri, and raw event payload' further clarifies the return value.

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 on how to use the tool: filter by type and since, set mark_read, and poll. It also mentions an alternative access method (GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json) for scripts/dashboards, which implies when the tool is not needed. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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