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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description states that setting mark_read:true flags returned events read, which mutates read state. This directly contradicts the read-only annotation, so the score is 1 per the rubric.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers return format, filtering, side-effect, and alternative access in an efficient, well-structured manner.

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 the return fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload), covers all parameter semantics with examples, and discusses polling behavior and alternative access. It is complete for a read-oriented 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 the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds value with example values ('sec_8k'), format clarification (ISO timestamp), and explains the side-effect of mark_read, going beyond the schema.

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,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It explains the returned alerts carry source, citation_uri, and raw payload, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_subscriptions or recent_changes.

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 explains filtering by type and since, notes that polling works fine, and provides an alternative REST endpoint for scripts/dashboards. This gives clear when-to-use context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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