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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral details: returned fields, mark_read flag behavior, and polling safety. No contradictions 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?

The description is four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose (purpose, return fields, filter options, behavior note). No fluff, well front-loaded.

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 explains return fields (source, citation_uri, payload). Parameters are well covered with examples. Could mention pagination but not essential with a limit parameter. Overall complete for a low-complexity feed retrieval tool.

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 all parameters are documented. The description adds context beyond schema: examples of type values ('sec_8k'), ISO timestamp for since, and the effect of mark_read. This adds meaning beyond what the schema 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 the subscription feed, listing specific return fields (source, citation_uri, payload) and filter options. The verb 'Pull' and resource are specific, and the purpose distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_within' or 'recall'.

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 polling suitability and an alternative GET endpoint for scripts/dashboards, implying when to use the tool (regular polling). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or specify when not to use, but the context is clear enough for its niche.

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