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

The description discloses that mark_read:true mutates read state, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction: the tool can have side effects (marking events read) despite being annotated as read-only. The description itself is transparent, but the annotation conflict makes it untrustworthy.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value: what is returned, how to filter, mark_read behavior, and an alternative endpoint. No redundancy or fluff.

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 the annotation conflict, the description provides sufficient operational context: response fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload), filtering options, polling suitability, and an alternative access URL. It lacks explicit pagination or error handling details, but for a read-style tool with 5 optional params, this is adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful usage semantics beyond the schema: explains that 'type' filters to a specific subscription type (e.g., 'sec_8k'), 'since' uses ISO timestamps, and 'mark_read' affects future calls. This helps the agent understand param interaction and intent.

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 a specific verb+resource combination: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_subscriptions, subscribe, and unsubscribe, and specifies the source (evaluator-written events) and return payload contents (source, citation_uri, raw event payload).

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?

Provides clear context on when to use the tool: for polling, filtering by type/since, and marking read. It also mentions an alternative access method (GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json) for scripts/dashboards, which is useful context, though it doesn't explicitly exclude sibling tools.

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