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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world operation, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot express: severity is scored 1-4, results are returned newest-first, freshness is throttled on lower plans, and each call costs 0.3 points. Only pagination/return-shape detail is missing.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load what the tool returns, then append ordering, plan-based delay, and cost. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 seven optional params and no output schema, the description still conveys the essentials an agent needs: what an event is, its severity scale, ordering, cost, and freshness caveat. Cursor-based paging and the event 'types' vocabulary are left entirely to the schema, which is a minor gap for a list 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 the schema already documents asset, limit, since, types, cursor, symbol, and min_severity. The description only restates the severity range and asset scope that the schema defines, adding no syntax or filtering nuance beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (Market Pulse events) and defines what they are: sudden price moves and market events on US stocks and crypto. A reader can tell it apart from get_sector_events and get_news by content type, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closer sibling get_pulse_summary, so it stops short of the top band.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain described (real-time market movement events), and 'Newest first; delayed on lower plans' hints at freshness expectations. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative steer, leaving the agent to infer it from the sibling list.

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