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

The annotations state readOnlyHint: true, implying no state changes, but the description explicitly describes a mutating behavior: 'Set mark_read:true to flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones.' This directly contradicts the read-only annotation, making the tool's side effects unclear and potentially misleading for agents relying on the read-only hint.

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 three sentences of dense, relevant information: purpose, return contents, filtering, mark_read behavior, polling suitability, and an alternative REST endpoint. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action verb, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors: return fields, filtering, mark_read side effect, and polling. It lacks details on pagination and handling of unread_only, but the schema covers these. The main completeness gap is the unresolved contradiction regarding read-only vs. read-write behavior, which affects trust in the description.

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?

The schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema: provides an example type ('sec_8k'), clarifies that 'since' uses an ISO timestamp, and explains the state-changing effect of mark_read. This extra context helps the agent select and use parameters correctly.

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's function: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed.' It specifies the return content (source, citation_uri, raw event payload) and differentiates from sibling tools like list_subscriptions and subscribe by focusing on retrieving alert events rather than managing subscriptions.

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 usage context: filtering by type and since, using mark_read, and confirming that polling works. It also offers an alternative HTTP endpoint for scripts/dashboards. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools for alert-related tasks, though the name and description make this self-evident.

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