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

The description explicitly describes mark_read:true as 'flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones,' which is a state-changing side effect. This directly contradicts the annotations readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Because the description contradicts the structured metadata, it earns a 1 and an annotation contradiction flag.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds useful information (return payload, filtering, mark_read behavior, polling, and alternative URL) without fluff or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly names the key return fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload). It also covers all important parameters (type, since, mark_read) and notes the alternate feed URL. It omits limit/unread_only, but those are fully documented in the input schema, so the description is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by giving a concrete example for type ('sec_8k') and explaining the behavioral effect of mark_read (next call only shows newer ones), which goes 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 opens with 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed,' giving a specific verb and resource. It clarifies it returns recent alerts written to the persisted feed, and the field list (source, citation_uri, raw payload) distinguishes it from sibling tools 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 provides clear usage context: it's for retrieving subscription feed alerts, supports filtering, and notes that polling works fine. It also mentions an alternative HTTP endpoint for scripts/dashboards, but doesn't explicitly compare to sibling MCP tools or state when not to use this tool.

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