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

The description describes mark_read:true as flagging events read, which is a write operation. However, the annotation sets readOnlyHint=true, indicating no modifications. This contradiction means the description undermines the annotation. Score 1 required per 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 well-structured: purpose first, then return fields, filter options, mark_read behavior, and an alternative access note. It is slightly lengthy but concise for the amount of information. Every sentence adds value.

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 five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers return fields, parameter combinations, and usage context. It lacks details on ordering or pagination, but limit is mentioned. The contradiction slightly reduces completeness, but overall it is fairly thorough.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds meaningful context: explains filter options (e.g., type 'sec_8k', since ISO timestamp), limit range, mark_read side effects, and unread_only. This goes beyond the schema's bare 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 clearly states it 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed', specifying the resource and action. It lists return fields and filtering options. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 explains when to use the tool (for recent alerts, polling) and mentions an alternative access method (GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json). It covers parameters like filter and mark_read but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons to specific siblings.

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