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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: returned fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload), the effect of mark_read (flags read so next call shows newer), and that polls work fine. 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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then adds details. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise by using bullet points for the parameter effects. Still, it is efficient and readable.

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 adequately explains return values (source, citation_uri, raw payload). It covers all key behaviors: filtering, read tracking, polling suitability, and alternative access. For a read-only tool with five optional parameters, the description is fully complete.

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 meaning beyond the schema: examples (e.g., 'sec_8k' for type), explains the effect of mark_read (flags read for future calls), and clarifies that since expects an ISO timestamp. This enhances parameter understanding.

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, a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from the alternative REST API endpoint, making it clear this is the programmatic version, and among siblings, no other tool returns recent alerts, so purpose is unambiguous.

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: filter by type, since timestamp, set mark_read for read tracking, and mentions polling works fine. It references an alternative endpoint for scripts/dashboards but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, though the context is sufficient for decision-making.

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