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

Annotation contradiction: readOnlyHint is true, but the description states 'Set mark_read:true to flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones,' which is a state mutation. This directly contradicts the read-only annotation. The description does add useful details about return fields and the feed, but the contradiction undermines transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Four sentences cover the return payload, filtering, mark_read semantics, and an alternative access method. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining return fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload). It covers filtering, mark_read side-effects, and polling behavior. Missing details like pagination or error handling, but sufficient for a tool with well-described parameters and modest complexity. The annotation contradiction is a notable gap, but this dimension focuses on overall completeness.

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 value beyond the schema by providing an example type ('sec_8k'), clarifying the ISO timestamp format for 'since', and explaining the side-effect of 'mark_read' on subsequent calls. This exceeds the 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 clearly states the tool 'pulls fired events from your subscription feed' and 'returns the most recent alerts,' specifying both the action and the resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_subscriptions, which list subscriptions rather than alerts.

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 gives practical usage context: filtering by type and since, setting mark_read, and notes that 'polls work fine.' It also points to an alternative HTTP endpoint for scripts, though it doesn't explicitly exclude other tools or name sibling alternatives. Clear context without explicit exclusions.

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