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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the return fields (source, citation_uri, payload), the effect of mark_read on subsequent calls, and that polling works well. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 well-structured and relatively concise, starting with the main purpose, then details on return fields, filtering, and a note on alternative access. However, it could be slightly shortened without losing clarity.

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 essential aspects given the tool's complexity: return fields, filtering, mark_read, and alternative access. However, it does not mention ordering (most recent is implied but not explicit) or any pagination details beyond limit. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not fully 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?

The schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions, but the description adds practical context such as an example type ('sec_8k'), clarifies ISO timestamps, and explains the mark_read flag behavior, which enhances the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 action ('Pull') and resource ('fired events from your subscription feed'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on events rather than subscriptions or other entities.

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 some usage context, such as how to filter and use mark_read, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over sibling tools like list_subscriptions or when not to use it. The mention of an alternative REST endpoint is helpful but not a sibling comparison.

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