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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that returned events include source, citation_uri, and raw payload, and that mark_read:true mutates read state to affect subsequent calls. It also confirms polling suitability, which is not evident from annotations alone.

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?

Five short sentences, all information-dense: purpose, return format, filtering, mark_read behavior, and an alternative endpoint. No redundant language.

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?

The description covers the tool's return payload, key parameters, side effects, polling use case, and an alternative access method. Although it doesn't detail limit/unread_only behavior, those are covered in the schema and the tool is relatively simple.

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?

Since schema descriptions cover all 5 parameters at 100%, the description's added value comes from the concrete type example ('sec_8k') and explaining the side effect of mark_read on future calls. It does not elaborate on limit or unread_only, but the schema already does.

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 the specific action 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed,' naming both the resource and the operation. It further distinguishes itself from siblings like list_subscriptions by focusing on alert events rather than subscription 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 gives a clear use case for polling and mentions an alternative HTTP endpoint for scripts/dashboards, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools. It also provides guidance on filtering by type and since, which helps the agent choose appropriate parameters.

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