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

Annotation Contradiction: The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description explains that mark_read:true flags events as read and affects subsequent calls, which implies a state-modifying side effect. This directly contradicts the read-only annotation, so the description and structured metadata are inconsistent.

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, with every sentence serving a purpose: scope, return payload, filtering, mark_read effect, and polling/alternative access. Slightly dense but not bloated.

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 adequately explains return values (source, citation_uri, raw event payload), filtering behavior, mark_read semantics, and polling suitability. It provides a complete picture for selecting and invoking the tool, apart from the annotation contradiction.

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 meaningful beyond-schema details: a concrete type example ('sec_8k'), the ISO timestamp relationship for since, and the behavioral consequence of mark_read for future reads. This exceeds the baseline.

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 opens with 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes recent_alerts from siblings like recent_changes or list_subscriptions by focusing on fired subscription 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?

It provides clear context that this is for polling subscription feed alerts and notes that the same feed is accessible via a URL for scripts/dashboards. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like recent_changes or list_subscriptions, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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