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

The description states 'Set mark_read:true to flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones,' which is a persistent state change. This directly contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint: true, making this an annotation contradiction. Despite other helpful details, the contradiction requires a score of 1.

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 reasonably compact: four sentences, each serving a purpose (what it returns, how to filter, mark_read behavior, alternate access). It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids filler, though slightly longer than the most concise examples.

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?

For a read-oriented tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields, filter options, read state management, and alternate access. It doesn't repeat schema details about limit/unread_only but is complete enough. The annotation contradiction slightly undermines completeness, but the functional description remains solid.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions. The description adds extra value by giving a concrete example for type ('sec_8k'), clarifying since as ISO timestamp, and explaining the cross-call effect of mark_read. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, so it earns above baseline.

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 a specific verb+resource combination: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_subscriptions (which lists subscriptions themselves) and other query tools by focusing on recent alerts from a persisted feed.

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: filtering by type and since, using mark_read to advance the feed, and polling. It also mentions an alternative HTTP endpoint for scripts/dashboards. It does not explicitly exclude other tool alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to call this tool.

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