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

The description discloses a mutation – 'Set mark_read:true to flag returned events read' – but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction: the tool can alter persisted state when mark_read is set. The description itself is transparent, but it conflicts with the structured annotation, so per rule it scores 1 and flags an Annotation Contradiction.

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, each earning its place: purpose, return contents, filters/read behavior, and alternative access. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not repeat trivial information. No filler 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?

For a tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main return fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload), filtering options, mark_read semantics, and an external endpoint. It lacks a bit of detail on what 'read' status means or the default sort order, but overall it gives an agent enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete type example ('sec_8k') and explains the effect of mark_read on subsequent calls, but this mostly paraphrases the schema. It does not add significant new syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes recent_alerts from siblings like list_subscriptions (which likely lists subscriptions) and recent_changes (which tracks changes), by focusing on fired alert events with payload details. The scope is explicit: alerts the evaluator wrote to the persisted feed.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to poll fired alerts) and provides an alternative for scripts/dashboards: 'the same feed is also at GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json'. It explains filter and mark_read usage, but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it versus a sibling like list_subscriptions, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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