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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses the important side effect of mark_read:true, which flags events as read and affects subsequent calls. It also reveals the return payload content (source, citation_uri, raw event payload) and the existence of an external feed endpoint. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence contributes new information: the resource, return fields, filter options, mark_read effect, and an alternative HTTP endpoint. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return shape (source, citation_uri, raw payload). It also addresses polling behavior and provides a script-friendly alternative. Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 optional params, no required fields, read-only default with optional side-effect), the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The tool description adds meaningful semantic context, such as 'Filter by type (e.g. "sec_8k") and/or since (ISO timestamp)' and the effect of mark_read on future calls. It does not elaborate on limit or unread_only, but the schema already does so, keeping the description's added value at a solid level.

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 the resource as 'the most recent alerts the evaluator has written to your persisted feed,' distinguishing it from generic list tools. Although there is no sibling with an identical name, the description clearly scopes the tool to alert retrieval, which differentiates it from subscription management tools like list_subscriptions.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to fetch recent alerts, filter by type/since) and states that polling is acceptable. It also gives an explicit alternative for scripts/dashboards via the registry.pipeworx.io URL. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings like recent_changes or when not to use it, so some exclusion guidance is missing.

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