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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable context about the mark_read side effect (flagging events as read) and the alternative access via GET endpoint. It also mentions that polls work fine, which is not captured by 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, each contributing unique information. It starts with the core purpose, then details return fields, filtering, and finally alternative access. 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers all parameters, return fields (source, citation_uri, payload), and behavioral notes (polling, read marking). It is complete for a tool of moderate complexity with no nested objects.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete examples like 'sec_8k' for type and explains the effect of mark_read=true, enhancing understanding beyond the schema's parameter 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 pulls fired events from a subscription feed, listing return fields and filtering options. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_subscriptions, the specific mention of alert payloads and mark_read behavior makes the purpose distinct enough.

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 filtering parameters and suggests polling works fine, but it does not provide guidance on when to avoid this tool or compare it to alternatives such as list_subscriptions or the direct endpoint. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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