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

The description discloses a significant side effect by stating 'Set mark_read:true to flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones,' which implies a state change. This directly contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint: true, which asserts the tool is read-only. Although the description is otherwise rich in behavioral details, the contradiction forces a score of 1 per the rules.

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 compact yet comprehensive, using three sentences to convey purpose, return payload, filtering, mark_read semantics, and an alternative access method. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Pull fired events') and every sentence earns its place without 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?

The description covers the key aspects: what the tool does, what the returned alerts contain, optional filters, the mark_read side effect, and polling suitability. There is no output schema, but the return payload is described sufficiently. Some minor details like error handling or rate limits are omitted, but overall the description is complete enough for a read-oriented tool with well-documented parameters.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, but the description adds meaningful context for mark_read ('flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones') and provides a concrete example for type filtering ("sec_8k"). This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions, enhancing the agent's understanding of parameter behavior.

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' and 'Returns the most recent alerts the evaluator has written to your persisted feed.' This specific verb+resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_subscriptions or recent_changes, making its 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 retrieving alerts from the subscription feed, and even mentions an alternative for scripts/dashboards ('the same feed is also at GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json'). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or comparison to specific sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient for most use cases.

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