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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true indicates the tool should not modify state, but the description states setting mark_read:true flags returned events as read, which is a state modification. This contradiction undermines transparency. Despite the description disclosing the side effect, the contradiction with annotations leads to a low score.

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 efficient with 4-5 sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It is clear but could be slightly more concise. No unnecessary fluff.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload), acceptable usage (polling), and an alternative access method. It covers all five optional parameters adequately.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the mark_read side effect, providing an example for type filtering, and detailing return fields not in the schema (source, citation_uri, raw payload). This extra context justifies a score of 4.

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 and returns recent alerts with specific fields (source, citation_uri, raw event payload). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_subscriptions by focusing on event retrieval rather than subscription listing.

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 guidance on filtering by type and since timestamp, using mark_read for read tracking, and notes polling is acceptable. It also mentions an alternative HTTP endpoint for scripts, but does not explicitly exclude when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_subscriptions.

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