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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: the feed is persisted, mark_read mutates read state, and returned fields include source and citation_uri. No contradiction 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds distinct information without redundancy. Efficient and well-structured.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers returned fields, filtering, and the mark_read side-effect. It also addresses polling suitability and alternative access. Limit and unread_only are only documented in schema, but the description is still sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining 'type' with an example ('sec_8k'), clarifying 'since' as ISO timestamp, and detailing the effect of 'mark_read' on subsequent calls. This exceeds what the schema alone provides.

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 your subscription feed' and lists returned fields. It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 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 mentions that polling works fine and provides an alternative URL for scripts/dashboards, but does not explain when to use this tool versus other alert-related tools (e.g., subscribe, list_subscriptions). No 'when not to use' or exclusion criteria are given.

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