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

Even with annotations present (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: it discloses the mark_read side-effect (flagging events as read so the next call shows newer ones), mention of a persisted feed written by the evaluator, and an alternative public URL. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear understanding of state-changing behavior and data source.

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 action and returns, the second sentence adds filtering and the mark_read behavior plus an alternative URL. Every sentence earns its place, with 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?

With no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values (source, citation_uri, raw event payload). It also covers filtering, polling behavior, and side effects. The tool is simple with 5 optional parameters all schema-documented, and the description fills any gaps, making it complete for agent use.

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 extra meaning by providing a concrete example for 'type' ('sec_8k') and explaining the effect of 'mark_read' on subsequent calls. It does not describe 'limit' or 'unread_only', but those are already clearly documented in the schema, so the added value 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 the tool's function: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed.' It specifies the resource (subscription feed) and the verb (pull), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_subscriptions or recent_changes by focusing on alerts/events. It also details return contents, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 for when to use the tool: for polling alert events from the subscription feed. It also mentions an alternative method (GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json) for scripts/dashboards, giving some guidance on scenarios. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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