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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that mark_read:true flags returned events as read so subsequent calls return newer ones, and describes the return format in detail. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 a single paragraph with front-loaded purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful information: purpose, return fields, filtering options, mark_read behavior, and polling/alternative endpoint. No superfluous content.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately covers return fields (source, citation_uri, payload), parameter usage, and behavioral nuances like mark_read. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for a simple read-only tool with robust annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

All 5 parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the effect of mark_read ('flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones') and explicitly mentions filtering by type and ISO timestamp, enhancing understanding beyond the 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 clearly states the tool retrieves fired events from a subscription feed, specifies return fields (source, citation_uri, payload), and mentions filtering options. This distinguishes it from sibling tools as no other tool handles 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 notes that 'Polls work fine' and provides an alternative REST endpoint (GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json), offering clear context for when to use this tool vs. direct HTTP access. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool among sibling tools.

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