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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses a state-changing behavior: setting mark_read:true flags events as read and affects future calls. It also describes the return payload fields (source, citation_uri, raw event) and notes the feed is persisted. This adds significant context without contradicting 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 compact and front-loaded: four sentences cover purpose, return format, filtering, mutability, and an alternative access method. Every sentence adds new information without repetition or padding.

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 no output schema, the description effectively explains what the tool returns (source, citation_uri, payload), how parameters affect results, and the mark_read side effect. It also anticipates polling use cases and provides an alternative for non-agent scripts. This fully covers the tool's behavior in context.

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 already describes all 5 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by giving an example for type ('sec_8k'), specifying ISO format for since, and explaining the side-effect of mark_read. It does not explain limit or unread_only, but those are self-explanatory in the schema.

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 the tool 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed' with a specific verb and resource. It further explains it returns the most recent alerts written by the evaluator, distinguishing it from siblings like recent_changes or 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 explicitly mentions 'Polls work fine' to indicate suitability for repeated polling, and provides an alternative access path (GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json) for scripts and dashboards. It also shows how to filter by type and since, giving clear usage context.

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