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

The description states that setting mark_read:true flags events as read, which modifies state, directly contradicting the readOnlyHint annotation that declares the tool read-only. This is a clear annotation contradiction, so the score is 1 per the rubric.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs substantial detail into each sentence without fluff. The second sentence is somewhat dense but remains readable and all content is relevant.

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 return payload, filtering, mark_read side effect, polling, and an alternate HTTP access point. It omits nothing critical, and the schema covers remaining parameter details. It would be complete if not for the transparency 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?

While the schema covers all parameters at 100%, the description enriches meaning by giving a concrete example for type (sec_8k), specifying ISO timestamp for since, and explaining the side effect of mark_read. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 specifies a clear verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_subscriptions by focusing on fired alert events, and adds details about the payload and filtering.

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 usage context: filtering by type and since, mark_read behavior, and polling suitability. It also names an alternative endpoint for scripts/dashboards, offering an explicit alternative. It does not explicitly exclude sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient.

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