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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining that mark_read:true flags events as read and affects future calls. It also mentions the content of each alert (source, citation_uri, payload). This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return data, filtering, mark_read behavior, and alternative access. No redundant or vague language.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, filtering, mark_read side effects, and even an alternative endpoint. It could mention pagination or sorting behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only tool.

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% with descriptions. The tool description adds a concrete example for type ('sec_8k') and clarifies that 'since' expects an ISO timestamp. It also explains the effect of mark_read more clearly than the schema. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema definitions.

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 starts with 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed', which is a specific verb+resource. It also mentions 'Returns the most recent alerts...' and includes details about what each alert carries (source, citation_uri, payload), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_subscriptions' or 'subscribe'.

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 states how to filter by type and ISO timestamp, how to use mark_read to control read state, and that polling works fine. It also provides an alternative access method (GET endpoint). However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or compare it to siblings like 'search_within' or 'subscribe'.

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