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

The description describes a state mutation: 'Set mark_read:true to flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones.' This directly contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint: true, which asserts the tool does not change state. This is a critical inconsistency that could mislead an agent about side effects.

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 compact yet information-dense, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Each sentence adds novel value: return payload details, filtering/mark_read semantics, and an alternative data access URL. No filler or redundancy occupies the text.

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), filter options, mark_read behavior, polling suitability, and a direct feed URL. It omits details on how limit interacts with unread_only or mark_read, but those are documented in the schema. For a tool with no output schema and five optional parameters, this is nearly complete.

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 already documents all five parameters with 100% coverage, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it gives a concrete example for type ('sec_8k'), explains the consequence of mark_read (future calls show only newer events), and mentions the combination of type and since filters. This enhances the agent's ability to use parameters effectively.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed.' It further clarifies what is returned (source, citation_uri, raw event payload) and distinguishes itself from generic recent-activity tools by focusing on the evaluator-written persisted feed. This clearly establishes the tool's unique scope among siblings like 'recent' and 'recent_changes'.

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 gives clear usage context: polling works fine, an alternative HTTP endpoint is provided for scripts/dashboards, and mark_read controls forward progress. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use, but the integration guidance and mark_read sequencing offer strong practical direction.

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