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

The description discloses that setting mark_read:true flags returned events as read, affecting subsequent calls—a state-modifying behavior. However, the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which implies no writes. This contradiction between description and annotation misleads the agent about the tool's side effects, leading to a low score.

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, front-loading the core purpose and then efficiently covering key features (filters, mark_read, polling). Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema, the description explains what fields each alert carries (source, citation_uri, raw payload). It also mentions polling suitability and an alternative endpoint. For a tool with 5 optional parameters, this is sufficiently complete, though it could briefly note the structure of the payload.

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 baseline parameter info. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it gives an example for type ('sec_8k') and explains the effect of mark_read on future calls ('so the next call only shows newer ones'). This extra guidance moderately enhances parameter understanding.

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 the subscription feed and returns recent alerts with specific fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_subscriptions, which list subscriptions themselves, not events. The verb 'pull' and resource 'fired events' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (to check recent alerts) and mentions an alternative GET endpoint for scripts/dashboards, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide exclusions compared to other tools. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer typical usage.

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