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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds details about the feed persistence, mark_read feature, and returned fields, enhancing transparency beyond 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. It's structured logically: purpose, return fields, filtering options, note on polling, and alternative access.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains returned fields. It covers filtering, polling, persistence, and an alternative endpoint. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is fairly complete, though more detail on error conditions could be added.

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%, but the description adds useful context for parameters like type filtering, since (ISO timestamp), and the mark_read/unread_only interaction, which adds value 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 clearly states the tool pulls fired events from a subscription feed and returns recent alerts with specific fields like source, citation_uri, and raw payload. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the alert feed retrieval.

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 'Polls work fine' and provides an alternative URL for scripts/dashboards, giving context for usage. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios but offers practical guidance.

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