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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral details: it explains that mark_read affects subsequent calls by flagging events as read, and it lists the fields in the return data (source, citation_uri, raw payload). 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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, but it is slightly verbose. Each sentence adds value, but a couple of phrases ('carries source, citation_uri...' and 'Polls work fine...') could be merged or trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

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 covers return values (source, citation_uri, payload), usage patterns (polling, mark_read), and an alternative endpoint. All 5 optional parameters are addressed in context. No missing critical information for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 enhances this with examples (e.g., 'sec_8k' for type, ISO timestamp format for since) and explains the effect of mark_read and unread_only. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema's basic 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 clearly states that the tool pulls fired events from a subscription feed and returns recent alerts. It specifies the kind of data returned (source, citation_uri, raw payload). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'recent_changes' or 'list_subscriptions', which might also deal with feed-like data.

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 concrete usage guidance: it mentions filtering by type and since, using mark_read to manage read state, and notes that polling works. It also suggests an alternative endpoint for scripts and dashboards. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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