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

The description states that setting mark_read:true flags returned events as read, which is a side effect (modifying read state). This contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint=true, which implies no data modification. The contradiction is serious and misleading for the agent. While other behaviors like return fields are disclosed, the key behavioral detail conflicts with 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 with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose, then details return fields and filtering, then adds a note about mark_read and alternative endpoint. Every sentence contributes 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?

Despite the annotation contradiction, the description covers all aspects: what it returns (source, citation_uri, payload), filtering options (type, since, mark_read, unread_only), side effect of mark_read, and alternative access method. Without an output schema, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand inputs and outcomes.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining each parameter's effect: type filters subscription type, since filters by fired_at, mark_read flags as read, unread_only returns only new events. It also gives an example type 'sec_8k', enhancing understanding beyond the 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 clearly states 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed,' specifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool by identifying the source (subscription feed) and the kind of data (alerts from evaluator), setting it apart from siblings like 'query' or '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 mentions that polling works fine and provides an alternative REST endpoint for scripts/dashboards, giving some context on usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other tools (e.g., 'query') or when not to use it. The mention of an alternative is helpful but not full guidance.

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