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

The description discloses a behavioral trait that contradicts the provided annotations: it says 'Set mark_read:true to flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones', which is a state mutation, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint: true. This gives conflicting safety signals to the agent.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Each sentence serves a purpose: return contents, filtering, mark_read behavior, and an alternative access method. It is appropriately sized without fluff.

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 return payload (source, citation_uri, raw event payload), filtering, mark_read semantics, and the REST alternative. Since there is no output schema, it usefully outlines the returned fields. It could mention limit/unread_only but those are well-defined in the schema, so overall completeness is high.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: gives a concrete type example ('sec_8k'), clarifies the ISO format for 'since', and explains the side-effect of mark_read. Limit and unread_only are self-explanatory from the schema, so the added value earns 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 purpose: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed' and 'Returns the most recent alerts'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_subscriptions by focusing on the alert feed contents.

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/or since, setting mark_read for read-state management, and noting that polling works. It also mentions an alternative REST endpoint for scripts/dashboards, which serves as an explicit alternative. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the guidance is strong.

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