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

Even though annotations mark readOnlyHint=true, the description transparently discloses that mark_read:true flags events as read, affecting subsequent calls. It also explains the persisted feed and open-world behavior (next call only shows newer ones), adding valuable context beyond 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence provides useful information—purpose, output details, filtering options, mark_read side effect, and alternative access—with no fluff or repetition.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers filtering, limit default (in schema), mark_read side effects, event fields, polling suitability, and an alternative HTTP endpoint, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to misuse the 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% (all 5 parameters documented), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving an example type ('sec_8k'), explaining the effect of mark_read on future calls, and describing the returned event fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload), which goes beyond schema 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 opens with 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed', a specific verb+resource. It further explains that each alert carries source, citation_uri, and raw payload, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_subscriptions by focusing on events rather than subscription management.

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: filtering by type and since, setting mark_read, and polling. It also points to an alternative access method (GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json) for scripts and dashboards. It doesn't explicitly enumerate sibling alternatives, but the context is unambiguous and practical.

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