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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: mark_read marking events read, return fields (source, citation_uri, payload), and that the feed is persisted. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which are consistent. No contradictions.

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 tightly written, starting with purpose, then parameter details, and ending with an alternative access method. No redundant sentences; all information is earned.

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 the tool's simplicity (5 optional params, no output schema), the description covers what is returned, filtering options, mark_read behavior, polling suitability, and even an alternative URL for scripts. No critical gaps.

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% with good descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the effect of mark_read, giving an example for type ('sec_8k'), and specifying ISO timestamp for since. This exceeds the baseline 3.

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 pulls fired events from a subscription feed, returning recent alerts. It specifies the resource (alerts/feed) and verb (pull), and differentiates from siblings by focusing on reading alerts, while other tools like 'subscribe' handle 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 provides context on when to use: for polling alerts and mentions an alternative endpoint for scripts. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios or compare to related tools like 'recall' or 'query', leaving some ambiguity.

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