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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the return payload structure (source, citation_uri, raw event payload), the side effect of mark_read (flagging events as read so subsequent calls only show newer ones), and the suitability for polling. Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent, so the description enriches rather than merely restates.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence serves a purpose. It covers functionality, filtering options, a side-effect, and an alternative access point without any wasted words.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description adequately covers return values and parameter usage. It also addresses polling, filtering, and the existence of an alternative endpoint, making the tool complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples for 'type' (sec_8k), clarifying the format for 'since' (ISO timestamp), and explaining the behavioral impact of 'mark_read' — details not fully captured in the schema descriptions alone.

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 identifies the tool as pulling fired events from a subscription feed and returning the most recent alerts. It specifies the resource and the verb ('Pull'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'recent_changes' by mentioning 'alerts' and 'subscription feed' explicitly.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (e.g., polling) and even points to an alternative access method (GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json) for scripts/dashboards. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of sibling tools, 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.