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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true conflicts with the description's statement that setting mark_read:true will 'flag returned events read', which is a state mutation. The description discloses this side effect, but the annotation contradicts it, triggering the annotation contradiction rule. This is a serious inconsistency that could mislead an agent about the tool's side effects.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence provides useful information—return fields, filters, read-state behavior, and alternative access. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

It explains return payload contents (source, citation_uri, raw payload) despite no output schema, and mentions polling suitability and an HTTP alternative. It does not explicitly mention the 'unread_only' parameter, but the schema covers it, so this is a minor gap. Overall, it is quite complete for a read-focused 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by giving a concrete example for type ('sec_8k'), reinforcing the ISO format for since, and explaining the behavioral effect of mark_read (only newer events on next call). This goes beyond the basic schema descriptions.

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 action ('Pull fired events from your subscription feed') and clearly identifies the resource (persisted alert feed). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like recent_changes or list_subscriptions by focusing on fired alerts with filtering and read-state management.

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?

It provides clear context for usage: you can filter by type/since, set mark_read, and poll the same feed via an HTTP endpoint for scripts. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over sibling tools like recent_changes or when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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